Aside from our inverting the roles of romantic love and marriage, another striking feature of our new view of sexual morality is the embrace of serial monogamy as the pinnacle of sexual virtue. Indeed, serial monogamy is now generally considered more moral than lifetime marriage, because it facilitates an unfettered focus on romantic love. Women especially are regularly advised that it would be an act of virtue and courage for them to leave their marriage should they be experiencing anything but quintessential romantic love.

Serial monogamy is elevated to such lofty heights in our society that it would be easy to forget that all it really means is one at a time. Women will always search for a societal definition of the boundary between good girls and sluts, and our current answer is:

Good girls don’t do more than one man at a time.

Many would assume that modern women no longer care about such trivialities as the difference between good girls and sluts, especially since we now have sluts literally marching down the streets of every major western city. While this mistake is understandable, it misconstrues what the slutwalks are all about. The slutwalkers claim to embrace the term slut, but if they didn’t feel a powerful stigma they wouldn’t be protesting. If the slutwalkers really wanted to show how unconcerned they are with the stigma of the word, they would proudly display the number of penises they had personally sampled, each eager to one up the more prude and inexperienced in their ranks. But this would be taking the whole slut thing a bit too far, so very few women would be willing to march with an honest number.

I started dating immediately after I told my now-ex that I wanted to get a divorce. This was because, as one of my friends very aptly put it, I wasn’t really “rebounding” so much as just “bounding” — rebounding assumes that you’re bouncing off of something, and I wanted a divorce because my marriage no longer qualified as a relationship.

The problem occurred when some of the men she was dating declined to have sex with her because she was still legally married:

I think I dated maybe eight men in a six-month period. Two of them (so we’re talking 25 percent) enjoyed my company, enjoyed the sex, and then all of a sudden decided to tell me that they “couldn’t” date me because it was morally wrong because I was “still married.”

Obviously she felt the burn of being slut shamed by these men, or she wouldn’t have bothered writing an article complaining about the terrible unfairness of it all. For those who aren’t familiar with the Frisky, it is important to note that this isn’t a site with anything like a traditional bent, and Ms. Brink is anything but conservative. If you doubt this, take a look at Ms Brink’s other articles*, her Flickr page, or this picture, one of many of her self portraits.

Yet even a free spirited woman like Ms. Brink feels compelled to write an article explaining that in having sex with new men before her divorce was finalized, she wasn’t really violating the “one at a time” rule of modern chastity.

All of this is important to remember when you hear women complaining about how terribly oppressive the old rules of sexual morality were to women:

No matter how free spirited the woman, she will still seek out the current definition of chastity in order to separate herself from those slutty women who don’t follow the rules.

No matter how low the bar is, women will always loudly complain that the rules are too constrictive, and therefore cruel to women.

*July 18th Edit: The original link for “other articles” mistakenly pointed to a meetup page of for Ms. Brink. I had intended to link to the full list of her articles at The Frisky. I have since corrected this error.

“”men she was dating declined to have sex with her because she was still legally married:””

I would not have banged her either.There is no need to bang married wimminz.There are plenty of singles ones around.Wimminz like her are so fucked in the head it is unbelievable.Having a drink with a skank like this too much work…let alone banging the pig….NO THANX!

“”Obviously she felt the burn of being slut shamed by these men, or she wouldn’t have bothered writing an article complaining about the terrible unfairness of it all.””

Bingo!…..Some men have morals! I looked at her pics…..she is nothing special! Just another skank who thinks she has a “golden pussy”(that in actuality,is stretched to the max…and stinks). I wish this pig luck.She is soon to discover that she will be used and discarded….several hundred times! And as here looks fade…she will get more desperate and eventually settle for the wino that is begging for change on the street corner.My sentiments?….””Fuck you…you useless twat!…you are getting what you want…and deserve”

I can sympathize with her about the shaming she received though because those 2 guys only had a moral objection to banging her after they dipped their wands in her. If these guys thought she was a lousy lay, they should have told her rather than hide behind a moral pretense.

“”Ironic that 75% of the guys had no problem banging her and she complains about the 25% that it couldn’t be 100%.””

This article really hit home for me.It reminds me of my oldest sister.She divorced a “really great guy”….A guy that is still considered part of the family…and always will be! Has my sister met a better “mate”???…..not a chance!….Nor will she! A 46 year old single mother is not on the list of what we would call; “valuable women'”….”Where are all the good men”???…..Avoiding wimminz like you!!!!!!

I don’t see how she got married in the first place. She has “just pussy” written all over her and that is how she is proudly presenting herself. I’d hit it on the way home from work on the night shift but I wouldn’t “go out” with her. Damn sure not marry her. She is the type that if you told her that she would get the tingles and go all out trying to get you to fall for her. When you get tired of her tell her you love her. She will dump you and you don’t have to worry about her scratching up your car. Dalrock you are getting hard man. Getting down to the real day to day . Out into the trenches.

The Female Imperative demands sampling as many different varieties of sperm as possible, in order to produce offspring with the highest potential for survival, and resources to enable that.

Or, in the crude lingo of the Androsphere, AF-BB.

Women always want to be able to present themselves as honest and “not a slut” if for no other reason than to have a good chance at the Beta Bux provisioning.

It’s actually quite remarkable that in less than 50 years, Western society has gone from a “one man only” norm to this “one at a time” norm that Dalrock explicates.

One way to deal with sluts such as the authoress at Teh Frisky is simple and obvious: merely point out the fact that they are, in fact, sluttty sluts who like to slut it up in order to enhance their slutitude. Ask when the next gang bang is, and just laugh at any outrage. Because the diff between a serial slut and a train-pulling one is merely a matter of timing.

Oh, and PS: Since industrial civilization requires some number of normal, functional, humans to make it work, and since slutty sluts slutting it up tends to lead to babymommas whose offspring tend to be dysfunctional, the short term goals of the Female Imperative tend to lead in dysgenic ways in the direction of a grass-hut civilization.

Am I really supposed to believe that in The United States of America that a Divorce cannot be achieved in less than six months?

Maybe those guys who went moral on her were just letting her down the soft way and did not want to hurt her feelings that she was merely a short time play-thing. The way I read it, she slept with all eight (but note her haziness as to numbers) and two exited on their terms, (which is what really irks her) whilst presumably she dumped the other six.

Dalrock
For those Christian guys with no game. That woman is a slut. Straight up and always has been. She was most likely like that from high school. The fact that she was able to get married is a damn shame. Any churchian leader that thinks teaching game to a Christian man is wrong needs to have his ass thoroughly kicked. because there is no reason for somebody like that to be an ex-wife. Ugly truth churchian righteousness. She has more respect for the desires and values of the guys that didn’t fuck her than she does for her husband. Pleasing women once again is the losers way and a path to doom. A player and a PUA is more respectable than any churchian or even a cowardly Christian more concerned with looking righteous and nice to other men than having faith. She was checked by a player and she adjusted her behavior. That is why you don’t ever marry a slut hoe. And you have the faith to so out loud especially in church. And every young man is taught how to spot a hoe and how to handle a hoe with indifference.

“”I don’t see how she got married in the first place. She has “just pussy” written all over her and that is how she is proudly presenting herself. I’d hit it on the way home from work on the night shift but I wouldn’t “go out” with her.””

Bingo!….buying coffees is a waste of time on this whore……but,I will take a ‘blowjob to go’

“”Dalrock you are getting hard man. Getting down to the real day to day . Out into the trenches””

LOL!……We are going to have to watch what we post.I think we might be ‘jading’ Mr.”D”….L*

A woman who destroys her family in pursuit of the next thrill, is comparable to the married man who has an affair.

Both are cheating and taking advantage of the most effective reproductive strategy for their sex: which is hypergamy for women (find the best sperm for her egg), and polyandry for men (fertilize as many women as possible).

Interestingly, the optimal female reproductive strategy (i.e. hypergamy = one at a time) has not only been whitewashed of its sins (which are: betrayed husband, destoyed family, f-up kids, huge social costs to bear by taxpayers) but has actually been elevated to some kind of societal moral imperative.

Obviously, the male strategy (i.e. multiple partners) has been vilified to no end and in many cases with devastating legal consequences for the men engaging in it, even when no kids / family would suffer from its practice.

The double-standard could not be more obvious. Like “Chateau Heartiste” said: one of feminism’s goals is to lift all restrictions on female sexual behavior (no matter how immoral and costly to society) while at the same time restricting male reproductive options to zero (except for when they are useful to satisfy women’s hypergamy).

Hm, slight modification. Serial monogamy isn’t enough to not be a slut, you also have to be in long relationships (i.e. a year) with each to not be considered a slut. So miss 8 bfs in 6 months== slut, 8 bfs over 30 years!= slut.

Mark
That is exactly how you talk about and to a woman like that. The sin of nice is to allow this women to be pleased. She should never ever not feel like a slut and damn sure should never think others don’t see her as a slut.

After I Do–a story about a married couple who decides to explore the meaning of love and commitment by taking a one-year hiatus from each other. (Anyone else hearing Ross’ “We were on a break!!??”) To enter, simply tell us in the thread below where you would go if you had a year of freedom from your regular life.

There are 993 comments so far, including this:

“‘After I Do’ applies to my life at this very moment my man and I are taking a year apart to explore those very things. if I had the money I would go to New York and LA. I would go to as many modelling open calls as possible.”

Two of them (so we’re talking 25 percent) enjoyed my company, enjoyed the sex, and then all of a sudden decided to tell me that they “couldn’t” date me because it was morally wrong because I was “still married.”… it was these two dudes’ blithe judgment, having little-to-no background on what my relationship had been like (and, being casual dates, not being entitled to that information), that I still had to defer to it.

The two dudes should totally dive full-in to a relationship with a woman who’s background they don’t know. And “aren’t entitled” to know.

The way I read it, she slept with all eight (but note her haziness as to numbers)

Her intentional vagueness is outright comical. She brags of keeping it casual in a post defending her sexual virtue, and is careful not to outright say she had sex with with multiple men concurrently. No, she “dated” them concurrently:

I told all my new suitors that I was coming out of a long relationship and was just enjoying myself. If I was dating several people at once, I told all of them that that was the case.

She even wraps this all in the language of courtship, describing the men she casually banged while still married as “suitors”.

It all reminds me of another Frisky post I wrote about a while back, where the woman explains that she is so forward in her thinking that she isn’t embarrassed about her number. She was in fact so comfortable with her number that she declined to state it either to her Gynecologist or in the piece she wrote explaining how unembarrassed she was about her number.

The thing is, for secular, non-religious people, the “one at a time”/serial monogamy approach is more honest than twisting marriage, which was an institution designed around different values, to serve personal hedonism and narcissism (with benefits of course).

And that parenthetical is the key to all of this.

Without the benefits of marriage (especially the exit benefits), women would not bother with it in a world where serial monogamy is dominant, even among married people. Marriage persists precisely because it is a benefited relationship with exit benefits. On balance, it’s worth it (for women) from the perspective of establishing at least some claims to property that are clearer than under existing law for non-marital cohab relationships in most places.

The question is: why do we provide these kind of benefits to a relationship that is basically BF/GF? Is it the mere possibility that it will, in around half the cases, actually be long term stable, regardless of the reason for that, and that it is worth preserving the smoke and mirrors because in some cases it continues to contribute to social stability? Personally, I think it’s because of the tilt toward women that is a hangover from the entire history of the species prior to the rise of the service economy. But it’s not really a rational policy — it’s a hangover from the past, coupled together with contemporary pro-female sympathy.

Again, from a strictly secular perspective, there is no marriage, really — not in the sense that it has been throughout human history. There is a state-benefited BF/GF relationship that exists for as long as both BF and GF wishes it to last, and which provides post-exit benefits. A more honest approach (again, for seculars) would simply embrace true freedom in these areas — that is, don’t both with marriage, or calling these marriages, and instead come up with a new model that is specifically designed from the ground up for temporary self-actualization boosting, with comfortable exits for each when it fails to satisfy that purpose. The main reasons this won’t happen? (1) It would make serial monogamy more expensive for women and (2) it’s much more fun hollowing out and destroying marriage, remaking it as something completely different in the process, so that they can make it very, very hard, if not impossible, for people who actually do believe in what marriage is (as compared with serial monogamy) to have that, rather than a relationship that is unilaterally convertible to temporary self-actualizing serial monogamy.

Hm, slight modification. Serial monogamy isn’t enough to not be a slut, you also have to be in long relationships (i.e. a year) with each to not be considered a slut. So miss 8 bfs in 6 months== slut, 8 bfs over 30 years!= slut.

There is no hard and fast rule. My wife spoke with one woman who explained that she always continued to have sex with a “boyfriend” for at least six months before breaking things off, so she wouldn’t be a slut. The whole thing is incredibly arbitrary. Much of the confusion comes from the fact that women are simultaneously trying to define themselves as more moral than the sluts while also trying to push the boundaries. They want to push the line, while not going so far as to leave the confines of respectability. They also are engaged in a signaling war with other women.

Nova A more honest approach (again, for seculars) would simply embrace true freedom in these areas — that is, don’t both with marriage, or calling these marriages, and instead come up with a new model that is specifically designed from the ground up for temporary self-actualization boosting, with comfortable exits for each when it fails to satisfy that purpose. The main reasons this won’t happen? (1) It would make serial monogamy more expensive for women

This would likely reduce men’s responsibilities, thereby making it more difficult to obtain BetaBux at the appropriate phase of a woman’s life. Therefore it is unacceptable.

Plus it takes away ambiguity, and that’s a key part of women’s reproductive strategy.

Women especially are regularly advised that it would be an act of virtue and courage for them to leave their marriage should they be experiencing anything but the pinnacle of romantic love.

Yes, they are literally being taught that evil is good and good is evil. With so much emphasis placed on the desire for self-fulfillment, and this emphasis long since motivating women to “foster their ongoing personal growth and development” (as put by a certain PC indoctrinated gyno-centered commenter on a previous thread), we see a surge in what Abraham Maslow described when he defined self-actualization: “the desire for self-fulfillment”.

I see it as a never ending quest for the pinnacle of self-actualization. Always searching but never finding because the lust of the flesh is never quenched, and the lust of the eyes never has it’s fill. One can easily see the connection between the deceitful fairy tails tailored for modern women and the wide scale epidemic of nuked marriages and / or wrecked relationships.

DalrockMuch of the confusion comes from the fact that women are simultaneously trying to define themselves as more moral than the sluts while also trying to push the boundaries. They want to push the line, while not going so far as to leave the confines of respectability.

“Fried ice”, in short.

They also are engaged in a signaling war with other women.

Of course, because if they don’t other women will get access to the AF first.

As t should be. Imagine that hypergamous wicked selfishness leads to a woman behaving with virtue. With the same mindset as this sluts. It is going to be something to behold when the herd try’s to out submit each other to the most masculine beta male. (MGTOW type)

{removed good comments}
“Any churchian leader that thinks teaching game to a Christian man is wrong needs to have his ass thoroughly kicked. ”

Teaching ‘game’ to christians is only treating the symptoms, not dealing with the root of the matter. The churches have abandoned what is taught/shown in the bible about men and women, and now resort to ‘damage control’ [read divorce apologetics or slut recycling]. I see ‘game’ as the secular alternative [nemesis perhaps] to divorce apologetics. Teaching ‘game’ to christian men should not be necessary, if the churches hadn’t already embraced feminism and divorce apologetics. But the genie has been released long ago and he aint going back into the bottle. If christians embrace divorce apologetics they should also understand and learn some ‘game’.
Will the churches return to basics? Unlikely. There will always be some exceptions
Will the churches teach ‘game’? Unlikely. There will always be some exceptions

Teaching ‘game’ to christians is only treating the symptoms, not dealing with the root of the matter. The churches have abandoned what is taught/shown in the bible about men and women, and now resort to ‘damage control’ [read divorce apologetics or slut recycling]. I see ‘game’ as the secular alternative [nemesis perhaps] to divorce apologetics. Teaching ‘game’ to christian men should not be necessary, if the churches hadn’t already embraced feminism and divorce apologetics.

You are dead wrong. The fact that you can say that shows it. A Christian man with “game” knows better than to even try damage control as you have defined. Ignorance is not bliss. Game will not be taught by the churchians running the church now out of fear. And that shows a complete lack of faith. No man of faith fears any truth or reality of this world. None. The only other reason is the original sin of fear of displeasing women. Understanding the true nature and motivation of women allows an ignorant man to remove women from the pedestal.
You are wrong on that and I used to be wrong too. To teach a young man about god and lie to him about the true nature of women is a complete lack of faith in the word. We are like it or not of this world and our strength as men lies in our faith not in our righteousness. A PUA, MGTOW man is doing more to correct this feral behavior than the church. The church has chosen the path of the coward, a mangina that announce virtue onto a slut. A Christian man needs, game ,science, a weapon, skills in electronics and mechanics ,and through in some biology. A Christian man needs to kick ass fully backed up with confidence and faith. That is where leadership comes from.

My apologies in advance if I am preaching to the choir here, since most everyone here has swallowed the red pill.

Contrary to popular belief, women are NOT naturally monogamous, and monogamy in itself offers NO benefits to women whatsoever in itself. Polyandry (whether simultaneous or serial) IS the optimal arrangement for women, all other things being equal. However, up until the very recent past, monogamy is something women must offer to men in exchange for his investment of resources, since he wants assurance the children he is investing in are really his. And, up until the very recent past, women could not raise children (at least not without EXTREME difficulty) without the investment of a man. We can debate until the cows come home about the desirability of all the societal changes which have happened in recent decades, but given the fact that they have happened, female promiscuity is an entirely predictable result.

Women’s primal fear regarding sexuality is ending up pregnant, or with children, and abandoned. Society’s former answer was, be sure you obtain the promise of a man’s resources via marriage before having sex. If HE then later reneges on his promise, we will do what we can to make him pay, and to otherwise provide societal resources. But if YOU renege on yours, you are on your own. In most states (maybe even all) an adulterous woman got NO alimony. And, if you get pregnant outside marriage, you are on your own also. You are only entitled to societal help if you keep up YOUR end of the bargain. All of this constituted SERIOUS societal pressure on women to be monogamous.

But of course this is not the way women would like to have it, and it is an error to infer that, simply because formerly women were much more monogamous due to the societal pressures involved, that they are NATURALLY that way. The societal changes that have happened in past decades are:

Easily available contraception and legal abortion.
Welfare for unmarried mothers.
Child support for unmarried mothers.
The mass entrance of women into the paid workforce.
No-fault divorce, with alimony awarded regardless of fault.
Tender years (this is only thing not that new on the list).
Child custody determined by “best interests of the child” (which is sufficiently vague that family court judges can justify just about anything).
Extremely accurate DNA testing which resolves any and all questions about paternity.

All of this means that there is no longer any societal pressure whatsoever on women to be monogamous. Now they would of course still LIKE to get investment of resources from men, but why stop at one? In fact, it rather surprises me that more women aren’t working the system like they could. All it takes is getting pregnant once by a really rich man, or three times by three different UMC men, and you’ve got it made.

Rebecca Vipond Brink: I wanted a divorce because my marriage no longer qualified as a relationship.

The woman of the world is sophisticated, fashionable, and experienced. The Cambridge dictionary says she can deal with most situations.

She knows when its okay to forgo her wedding vows and cuckold her soon to be ex-husband because she is a sexually empowered woman of the world. It’s really okay. She is exorcising her “empowerment”, so she isn’t a SLUT slut. She’s only a slut.

She’s one damaged woman. There are worse things than a divorce.. like being married to her.

Yep! And how fitting it would be for those adulterous men to be married to someone just like her. I hope they get a clue and stop helping to perpetuate cuckolding and slut hood.

An excellent post on the primacy of the serial monogamy meme. Goes hand in hand with Dalrock’s past discussions of “child support supplanting marriage as the new model of family”. See how these concepts reinforce each other.

Fascinating how women in the throes of serial monogamy contort themselves into believing they’re not sluts. They know in their hindbrains there are still negative connotations to sleeping around. Even if it’s only one at a time every six months to a year.

In fact, it rather surprises me that more women aren’t working the system like they could. All it takes is getting pregnant once by a really rich man, or three times by three different UMC men, and you’ve got it made.

That’s easy: women aren’t men. That is, they don’t make calculating individual choices in a vacuum — they can and do act in calculating individual ways, but the approval/disapproval of the herd is very important for most women in deciding how far they will go.

Yes, they are subject to the same choices you set out, but the assumption that they act in a calculating manner to maximize their genetic propgative self-interest is not accurate. Rather. as Dalrock says, women are motivated by the peer group much more than individual motives. There are “rebels” and “outliers”, of course, and in a feminist/post-fem environment, they have a lot of pull in terms of trying to motivate the herd to run this way or that, but averagegirl follows the herd, and so the key is what is influencing the herd, because that is what averagegirl will so, and not necessarily the same as what outliergirl (like the one in the OP) will do.

So averagegirl will have *some* of the serial monagamy jazz, but not so blatantly as to call into question her bona fides with the herd. Hence the point of Dalrock’s last post.

Serial Monogamy
“last year I had 19 boyfriends. I loved each one intimately and I have never cheated on any of them” “Not like that slut welfare queen with the three kids and the two dads, she will fuck anything with a bag of weed or a six pack.”

greyghost says:
July 13, 2014 at 7:47 pm
“You are dead wrong. The fact that you can say that shows it. A Christian man with “game” knows better than to even try damage control as you have defined. Ignorance is not bliss.”

You may have misunderstood what I said. I am not advocating ignorance or damage control. I am saying ‘game’ would not be necessary if the churches only taught what is written in the bible.

Which means as long as they aren’t engaging in fellatio, sodomy, and vaginal simultaneously, they aren’t sluts? Or does serial depend on the baud-y rate?

Revelation 21:8 (NIV) : “But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

There is insufficient notice to MEN about this damn subject. The acquaintance at the gym is advised to avoid marriage but not hell. The sluts require enablers. Purity was part of chivalry – Knights had vows. Women at least have a clear change. But “boys will be boys will be damned” [I am not swearing, but noting the eternal destiny] is rarely brought up.

To the point where it is often hard to tell which would be considered the tragedy: if a teenage son loses his virginity on his wedding night, or sometime around the age of 16 by being an alpha or PUA.

Don Quixote
Then “game” it is because we live in real ville. A red pill Christian man with faith is the baddest mutha fucka in the world. (all game is … is the truthful and realistic nature of women. as it plays out in real practice.)

Sadly many congregations have become so much like the secular world that one wonders why they still call themselves Christian.

I’ve noticed that whenever I bring up this very point with those who are heavily invested in the churchian institutions, the response I get is invariably some form of “well, don’t forget that churches are all made up of people, and we’re all fallen and sinful.” In other words, I apparently need to stop expecting people who claim to follow Christ to actually … well, make a serious effort to follow Christ’s teachings, however imperfectly. We’re all fallen, the “logic” goes, so we can’t possibly be expected to not act like fallen humans, even if we’ve been cleansed with the blood redemption.

Agreed. There were so many ‘tells'(Red Flags) about her true character that should have prevented any honest man from marrying her. The tattoo’s(self-advertising for alpha-males she’s available for sex), the panoply of Leftist group-think(eg Feminism, Slutwalks, LGBTQXYZ, Pride parades, Anti-Syrian war Agitprop,Occupy, etc.), and devotion to Contemporary Art which is itself very ideological ( e.g. anti-truth/symmetry/balance/figurative/reason/clarity/skill/talent). She is very much a part of Post-Modernist Secular Culture that devalues Truth, Commitment, Virtue, and Discipline and instead embraces Mendacity, Rage, Base Emotions, Selfishness, Hatred(especially hatred of one’s self), and the Irrational. That’s a whole lot of baggage for any man to deal with and should have sent sane men running. She’s not a woman I would place my trust, emotions, and life in. Very poor character indeed. However, there are lots of SWPL-Eloi males who buy into the Feminist Leftist group-think who share those beliefs too and don’t see the risks to themselves. Without seeing the ex-Mr. Brink looks like the ‘Old School’ term was ‘Useful Idiots’….

Again, from a strictly secular perspective, there is no marriage, really — not in the sense that it has been throughout human history. There is a state-benefited BF/GF relationship that exists for as long as both BF and GF wishes it to last, and which provides post-exit benefits.

Brilliant. Marriage is now a way for two people (soon to be more) who want to have sex and live together for the foreseeable future to register that relationship with the state. In exchange for making it more difficult and expensive to end the relationship, they gain some insurance, tax, and other benefits. The state (in theory) gains in the fact that relationships that have been licensed as marriages tend to be more stable, more likely to result in home buying, more likely to provide good child care, and so on.

So a woman today, by the age of 50, might have had 25 relationships varying in length from 2 hours to 10 years. Two had the marriage stamp, one being the 10-year and another being a 2-year, but she also had a 4-year in there somewhere that wasn’t a marriage. The only difference between the marriages and the 4-year shack-up was the amount of legal hassle in starting and ending them. Day-to-day, in the way she lived, the way she treated her mate, and the way other people treated them, there was no difference at all.

Yes, the response to such a woman is obvious: “Yeah, you’re right. God wanted the early Christians to be torn apart by lions. He wanted Joan of Arc and numerous other martyrs over the centuries to be tortured, burned, crucified, and killed in all sorts of ways. He wants Christians in Muslim nations today to be killed for their faith. But you, yes, you are so special that he doesn’t want you to experience one more minute of pain than necessary. He wants you to have a complete exemption from anything, including His own rules, that might prevent your constant and overwhelming happiness. And if your pursuit of happiness causes pain and suffering to others, well, that’s just the price He’s willing to have them pay for the happiness of His Special Princess. You are so totally right.”

“Yeah, you’re right. God wanted the early Christians to be torn apart by lions. He wanted Joan of Arc and numerous other martyrs over the centuries to be tortured, burned, crucified, and killed in all sorts of ways. He wants Christians in Muslim nations today to be killed for their faith. But you, yes, you are so special that he doesn’t want you to experience one more minute of pain than necessary. He wants you to have a complete exemption from anything, including His own rules, that might prevent your constant and overwhelming happiness. And if your pursuit of happiness causes pain and suffering to others, well, that’s just the price He’s willing to have them pay for the happiness of His Special Princess.

I say in all seriousness that this sounds exactly like something you could actually expect to hear from the pulpit of a prosperity gospel megachurch.

For so many people to simultaneously go off the rails to such a degree there has to be environmental factors at play far beyond the influence of feminism. Feminism itself may be more of an effect rather than a cause.

I say in all seriousness that this sounds exactly like something you could actually expect to hear from the pulpit of a prosperity gospel megachurch.

One problem I’m seeing is people (ok, women) who have a very simplistic take on the “once saved, always saved” doctrine of many Christian faiths. Not to start a holy war, but growing up Catholic, that always sounded like a get-out-of-hell-free card: accept Jesus as your Savior one day, and then you can do whatever you want after that, because you’re saved. I’ve since learned that it’s more complex than that, so again, I’m not trying to offend anyone or start an argument about it here. But I’m seeing a lot of women who DO seem to take it that way. So you hear them saying things like, “Well, I know this is a sin, but hey, Jesus is my Savior, so He’s already forgiven me for it, so no problem.” They don’t say, “I repent of this sin, and I know Jesus forgives me.” It’s, “I don’t have to be repentant, because I’m already forgiven for everything ever.”

Bad catechesis, I assume, which is something we Catholics certainly deal with too. But poor understanding of that particular idea seems to have a lot of people thinking they can do whatever they want with no eternal consequences.

@Dalrock
Thanks for the reply. Agreed on the goalposts. “Being a slut” is I think very dependent on location (I’m in the deep south at present). So miss 6 months so I’m not a slut? Definitely a slut down here. Or sex on a third date. Or with a “boyfriend” you’ve known for a month.

Then again, I consider most women to be acting completely against their interests (i.e. being sluts) and then too stupid to figure out why it makes them unhappy. Thank God for good German parents who made my sisters and me immune from the “lures and attractions” of whorish behavior. Namely through no tolerance and clear communication of no further emotional or financial support should said behavior occur. Remarkably motivating.

Looking at Mrs Brink’s photos, I have to say that her husband was onto a real keeper…not! A beta provider surely wouldn’t marry a tramp like this, so she must’ve tied the knot with her alpha. Just goes to show that even the alpha stud’s game (natural or not) is no defence or offence to women’s evil wiles. It’s just as I would expect. They discard both alphas and betas, if you believe that sort if thing…

Even Christians with there serial dating practices, and lack of guidance from fathers, don’t realize that even though they may not be having sex, the practice is like that of a whitewashed tomb. It’s a “Christianized” version of the world’s slut behavior.

It happens all the time. Sometimes the guy knows the full extent of it; sometimes he doesn’t. For a lot of guys, especially Christians, the logic goes like this:

1) If I have sex with a woman, or want to have sex with her, I have an obligation to marry her.

2) This woman is really hot and I want to have sex with her.

Put those two together, and the conclusion is inescapable; all that’s left is to convince himself to ignore her tramp status. If she has an ugly past, he tells himself (with encouragement from everyone in the world) that that’s in the past. She’s not like that anymore. She’s a new person (especially if she’s had a “come to Jesus” moment recently). She’s turned over a new leaf. She proved how “new” she is by being honest with him about her past. She’s gotten it out of her system, so he doesn’t have to worry about her cheating. At least it proves she likes sex, so he doesn’t have to worry about a sexless marriage.

And so on. All rationalizations, but that’s how people work. It all starts with his desire to have sex with her and his “noble” wish to do it properly.

I am truly confused: The United States is probably the most religious and god-fearing country on the planet so I might thus expect to find devout and chaste citizens and yet it also seems to breed the most bravado of females such as Vip(ond) girl* Rebecca Brink even as she is hazy about exactly what she did (though she wants everyone to know).

I follow Rollo’s reasoning that marriage betatises a man, including men who were so-called alphas to start with. That happened to me. But I believe that it is the modern State-owned, State-controlled Marriage 2.0 that betatises men, not the God-ordained Marriage 1.0. In fact it amazes me that any modern day Marriage 2.0 lasts for any significant length of time (perhaps none do). And where are all the Marriage 1.0’s. I don’t see them. Society is degenerating at an ever more rapid pace.

“It all starts with his desire to have sex with her and his “noble” wish to do it properly.”

If men especially the ones who want to do it right would get there is much more to a marriage than just sex…it would help them out.

I’d be watching her personality and how she interacts with people like a hawk before even thinking about marrying her. You can only have sex for a short amount of time in the day…you have to deal with her personality 24/7.

Flip side…I would learn what it means to be a leader. Being in a position of authority is not easy.

Yeah Cail I appreciate what you’re saying, but are you saying that an alpha wouldn’t have married her

No, I’m just responding to the claim I see quite a bit that a slut like this will get her comeuppance because no “decent” man will ever marry her when she decides to settle for a beta provider. That’s wishful thinking. Decent men marry them every day, and consider themselves lucky — until the bad comes out, of course.

It’s a bad cycle…she starts out getting railed by men who won’t commit to her…then she finally gets a nice guy who commits to her and she’ll rip his heart out by going back to men who’ll rail her but won’t commit.

But I believe that it is the modern State-owned, State-controlled Marriage 2.0 that betatises men, not the God-ordained Marriage 1.0.

True. Imagine the Marriage 1.0 husband: wakes up in the morning and eats the breakfast his wife cooked for him; goes off to work knowing that his wife is safe at home in his house caring for his home and children; comes home and sits at the head of his table while his wife brings him a supper he likes; holds court as the family head dealing with any disciplinary issues Mom needs to escalate to him; goes to bed and gives his wife a good dicking because he wants to.

Nothing emasculating about any of that; sounds pretty empowering, actually. It’s the difference between owning and being owned.

Marriage 2.0. — Family man goes to work. Stay at home wife/mom goes to gym and meets Cute Guy From Gym (CGFG). CGFG gives her tingles. He’s nice and so easy to talk to and he makes her feel desired. After a few weeks, flirting an flattery with CGFG turn to passionate sex.

A few months later, oblivious family man gets ILYBINILWY speech and divorce papers.

Suddenly, the state (which he certainly has never had trouble with before) has complete control and discretion of his finances, his home and when and even IF he gets to see his children. If he doesn’t comply with an order issued by a judge who has never met him or his family, his children can be taken away from him, he can be fined, he can be thrown into a cage indefinitely, and he can even be justifiably killed if he resists his imprisonment.

In a little under a year, Family Man can be completely devastated financially. He will be force to sell a house he loved or turn it over to his wife. He can easily lose over half his wealth acquired over a lifetime of hard work just paying lawyers and the litany of family court parasites. If he is from the wrong state, between child support and spousal maintenance, he can end up laboring under a 80% effective tax rate for the remainder of his working life.

For all practical purposes Family Man is now a financially devastated serf.

… and why? What has he done to deserve this instantaneous conversion from formerly solvent, tax-paying, law-abiding family man to impoverished, suspicious defendant under the thumb of judges and attorneys and psychologists and social workers?

He wasn’t CGFG. That’s it. That’s what he did — he wasn’t CGFG.

I wish this was an exaggeration but unfortunately, I live it every single day.

What’s interesting (and astonishing) is that “good girls do only one man at a time” is not only seen as “not slutty”.

Serial monogamy is seen as good, enriching, and beneficial. It is chaste. It is even moral. It is viewed as putting the girl on the path to marriage. It is “life experience” and “exploration”. These are viewed as moral “goods” that will help her, not harm her. There are those who believe that hooking up is not only a fact of life, but is also “moral” and “good”, so long as you are “honest” and “above board” about it, and you act “ethically” based on your “intent”.

Now, saving oneself for marriage and not having sex before marriage is viewed as constricting. Anything which is restrictive or chaste The view is that if a girl does not experience sex, she will be “inexperienced” and “naïve”. She will “not know what she wants” and “not know how to please or keep a man”. Or worse, she will “subject” herself to a man, which is the worst thing that can happen to a woman.

NovaseekerSo averagegirl will have *some* of the serial monagamy jazz, but not so blatantly as to call into question her bona fides with the herd. Hence the point of Dalrock’s last post.

This will vary from woman to woman, depending on what her “herd” considers normal, and that in turn will depend on the norms of a few opinion leaders within it. Teh Frisky is a “herd”, the regular female posters at ChristianForums or CAF is a “herd”, the women at a workplace is a “herd” (and typically there’s a queen bee opinion leader), the women who regularly attend a given church are a “herd” and so forth. Heck, a mother and her daughter constitute a “herd”, in some sense.

So in order to turn a herd of women, one does not have to affect all of them in one go, just the opinion leader(s). Convince them to adopt a different behavior as normative, and the rest will follow in time. That’s how groupthink works. So where does this article fit into the larger herd of Teh Frisky? Is it already normative, or is she pushing a bit at the norms? I don’t know the answer, but either way it’s a warning sign. A careful man would not just look for copies of Eat, Betray, Lust on a woman’s bookshelf, but also at the bookmarks in her browser – Frisky would be a big, flashing, warning sign.

Oh, and with regard to opinion leaders and the herd…kind of puts a different light on Strayed, doesn’t it?

“instead come up with a new model that is specifically designed from the ground up for temporary self-actualization boosting, with comfortable exits for each when it fails to satisfy that purpose. The main reasons this won’t happen? (1) It would make serial monogamy more expensive for women”

Expensive in more than one way. First, a new model would need to be fairer to men economically, in theory, appearance and practice. It would have to be based on “you take out what you contributed and what you brought in”. Women would have to make a more tangible economic and financial contribution to the partnership. And, it would require elimination of alimony/palimony and overhauling child support laws.

Second, there’s the status hit. Marriage persists because women want it. Women want marriage because of the status it gives them – a man thought enough of her, held her in high enough regard, to offer her a ring and to call her “Mrs.”. This is a woman’s crowning social achievement – to have a man regard her as wife (not booty call, not f*ckbuddy, not FWB, not even girlfriend or longtime companion). Most women are not going to want to settle for some kind of status that’s above “Girlfriend” but below “wife”.

Third, what would one make of a woman going into and coming out of relationships based on this model? She’s a woman who can’t make commitments. She will further degrade herself and her status. Men considering such women and knowing her past entanglements will be prone to view her as booty call, f*ckbuddy or FWB, not as “partner”.

Cail CorishevOne problem I’m seeing is people (ok, women) who have a very simplistic take on the “once saved, always saved” doctrine of many Christian faiths.

In my experience, most people don’t have a very deep understanding of the religion they profess, and in general the women’s understanding is shallower than that of men. Not just various denominations of Christianity. (Yes, there are exceptions, some extremely exceptional. I’m not referring to them.)

Assume for the sake of argument my observation is true: what does this say about women preachers?

“The United States is probably the most religious and god-fearing country on the planet”

Eh. Not when you drill down deep enough to get at what’s really going on in the US regarding “religious” behavior.

Opus, the particular statistic you’re probably relying on is church/religious service attendance. The US population is near the top of the heap in people who have attended a religious service in the last 3o to 60 days. Of course, that does not translate to religious or God-fearing. This is evident in the way many if not most people who attend those services actually live their daily lives. Most of those people have engaged or are actively engaging in fornication, have committed adultery, or are in adulterous remarriages.

The main reasons this won’t happen? (1) It would make serial monogamy more expensive for women and (2) it’s much more fun hollowing out and destroying marriage

This is in keeping with things that you and D have already said, but just to clarify, (3) the very word “marriage” retains much of its socio-symbolic power, built up over thousands of years, to convey status. There MUST be some bright-line differentiator to sort the “good winners” from the “bad losers” in the mating game. This thing need not have any actual content, as we all know marriage today does not except among the believing remnant. But it has to exist as an undeniably separate category from other kinds of relationships in order to confer status on those who enter into it.

The majority still feels that “marriage” is “something more”, something official, something higher, something better, etc. There is an apparent paradox: even as people work hard to make marriage, in practice, no functionally different than BF-GF, they still want to keep the name, the ceremony and the differentiation. But that paradox is only apparent. They want to retain only the status boost and discard all the obligations (at least those incurred by women). And the status boost exists only because of the very long half-life of marriage’s former honored position as an honorable legal, civic, moral and religious institution.

That half-life is proving to be very durable even the face of one gut punch to marriage after another, which is why “marriage” won’t go away any time soon. And even if it did, probably we will always need some status-boosting relationship differentiator. And, as long as we need that, people—out of inertia plus “respect” for this tradition—will just assume retain the name “marriage” even as we keep weakening it.

Yeah Cail I appreciate what you’re saying, but are you saying that an alpha wouldn’t have married her

No, I’m just responding to the claim I see quite a bit that a slut like this will get her comeuppance because no “decent” man will ever marry her when she decides to settle for a beta provider. That’s wishful thinking. Decent men marry them every day, and consider themselves lucky — until the bad comes out, of course.

That’s pure gold, right there. Although marriage rates are falling, I suspect that has more to do with people delaying marriage rather than foregoing it entirely. Most people get married sooner or later, and any woman who wants a husband can get one as long as she sets her sights low enough – I’ve seen women getting hitched who are so ugly (inside and out) that they could make a freight train take a dirt road.

Case in point: my sister-in-law. She’s a 48-year-old grandmother of three, she puts on make-up with a trowel, she has always struggled with her weight (usually with little success), she slept with one of her husband’s brothers when she was still married to the nice guy that raised her bastard kid as his own child.

Also, she can’t keep a house clean – her house is such a pig-sty that one time a bunch of us did an intervention and cleaned her house while she was away. We carted away an entire 20-foot-trailer full of trash, and probably could have filled another if we’d had more time… And she can’t cook… And she’s terrible with money… And she complains about everything and everyone. Yep… she’s quite a catch.

But a couple of weeks ago she got re-married. There she was, in a cumulonimbus of a weeding gown: huge, puffy and white. I’m sure that when she dumped the steady, hard worker that stuck with her even after she schtupped his brother she thought she was going to be able to trade up. She is the kind of woman about whom one would think, “There’s no way on Earth anyone is going to wife up that train wreck.” But one would be wrong. Of course a couple of years of post-divorce comeuppance forced her to realign her expectations about what she could expect, but she wanted the white wedding she never got, and she dragged one poor schmuck down the aisle.

Of course neither my wife nor I went to the wedding, but we saw the pictures and heard the stories. First of all, the guy she married is permanently and totally impotent. – no sex for her… at least with him. And since he doesn’t work he’s always broke, so she has to bankroll his gambling with her meager assets. Honestly, I think the fact that she picks up the tab is the main reason he keeps her around. And apparently the price of that continuing was his agreement to marry her. The wedding and reception were in a crappy small-town bar, and the groom refused to cut the wedding cake because he was playing horse-shoes outside. She actually took the cake to him by the horse-shoe pit so they could cut the cake together. They decided to “class it up” by stringing Christmas light through the new bar stools to make a runway. Then she went to the 4th of July parade while he stayed at the bar to play pool with his friends – there are pictures of her… in her wedding gown… no groom in sight… on her hands and knees in the street picking up the candy thrown by the people in the parade.

But, yep… she found a guy willing to wife her up. In the two years leading up to that farce my wife was wondering what she saw in him – he really is a complete loser. I explained to her that her sister’s MMV was so far down the toilet that an unemployed, impotent guy with a gambling problem was now her equal in MMV. That the two of them would pair off was simply what assortive mating looks like when a woman – who was marginal at best even when young – dumps her steady husband for what she thought would be greener pastures.

“There are those who believe that hooking up is not only a fact of life, but is also “moral” and “good”, so long as you are “honest” and “above board” about it, and you act “ethically” based on your “intent”.”

Lyn87The wedding and reception were in a crappy small-town bar, and the groom refused to cut the wedding cake because he was playing horse-shoes outside. She actually took the cake to him by the horse-shoe pit so they could cut the cake together. They decided to “class it up” by stringing Christmas light through the new bar stools to make a runway. Then she went to the 4th of July parade while he stayed at the bar to play pool with his friends – there are pictures of her… in her wedding gown… no groom in sight… on her hands and knees in the street picking up the candy thrown by the people in the parade.

What a great idea for a movie on Lifetime or Oyxgen…it would be a true “teaching moment”.

Yeah, the primary takeaways from serial monogamy as moral/good and the slut culture is this: the only price women are really paying in the short term and individual term is that they are just sliding the marriage event several years into the future. Most of them aren’t going to be old maid never marrieds. Most of them will get married eventually.

There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that these carousel riders are marrying men of roughly the same SMV/MMV at 30 that they could have married had they done so at 20 or 21 or 22.

So, as Nova has said elsewhere, the choices are:

1. Marry at 20 to a man who is your rough SMV counterpart; or

2. Ride the carousel for a few years, have hot yummy fun sex with hot yummy fun alpha men who will never, ever offer commitment; then step off the carousel and marry at 30 to a man who is your rough SMV counterpart.

Why on earth wouldn’t a woman choose option 2 (as most women, even Christian women, do)? Absent faith or moral reasons, there is no reason at all for a woman NOT to choose option 2.

Of course, all this is having devastating and widespread societal consequences, including the imploding birth rate and economic destruction, but that’s beside this particular point.

Continuing on with the theme “I don’t see how she got married in the first place.”
And she stepped “off the carousel to marry at 30 a man who is her rough SMV counterpart.”

Mrs Vipond Brink is certainly a fool but not near the fool she married. Her marriage was not an event where two fools met rather It was where a lesser fool set up a greater fool for a very expensive fall. Men are to blame for these disastrous divorces. Older men for failing to teach the younger ones not to be so stupid and young fools who should know better but continue to take foolish chances in spite of the terrible odds of marrying a slut. I hope the tide is beginning to turn on this kind of stupidity on the part of men. Obviously no Christian man should ever have so much as the time of day for a slut like this but NO man should ever pay a premium for what she so readily passes around for free.

There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that these carousel riders are marrying men of roughly the same SMV/MMV at 30 that they could have married had they done so at 20 or 21 or 22.

If she stays fit and doesn’t pop out a couple bastards in the meantime, yeah, she probably can, if she gets moving on it seriously by 30 and her expectations haven’t gotten too inflated. At least she can come close enough that she can’t tell the difference, and after a decade she’s not going to have a solid idea what her options were ten years ago anyway.

But if she waits until 32 or so, or she has a couple kids who “are my life,” or she’s put on 5-10 pounds a year, or she’s still holding out for Mr. Perfect, she may miss her window and end up settling for a much lower status man some years later.

Lately I’ve seen this in several women I met online years ago and still have as social media friends; some I dated, some I just chatted with and never met because the distance was too great or they simply rejected me. In every case, they’re hooking up with guys significantly older and uglier than them. And these are the ones that have stayed thin and more attractive than average for their age. One girl was seriously hot; even now at age 40 she still does some modeling and looks great — for 40. But she married badly in her mid-30s and bailed out in a hurry without even getting any cash and prizes, and she’ll never get a second chance to snag a guy while she’s still anywhere near her prime. At 30, she had guys fighting over her, sending her gifts, making her the belle of her corner of Myspace. Now at 40, she’s showing up on the dating sites for the first time in her life, trying to laugh it off as something her friends talked her into.

You might be right that the tide might be starting to turn, i.e. women who are waiting are losing market value and not staying equal with their rough SMV counterparts. But if that’s the case, it is happening quite slowly, and will take some time to shake out.

We don’t have a “marriage strike”. All that’s happening now are two things from what I can see: (1) everyone is waiting longer to marry (mainly women; they are forcing men to wait); and (2) Remarriage rates are falling if not cratering. In other words, a lot of people aren’t remarrying after divorce or widowhood; and it’s not clear if that’s by choice or by force.

That’s a very good summary of how churchianity differs fundamentally and completely from Christianity. It is the former, not the latter, that the majority of “religious” Americans adhere to – and which is reflected in the implosion of marriages and families even among “the faithful.”

“ damaging to women’s prospects, as too many will show up at the same time, even as a growing number of men are not earning money or otherwise checking out.”

As for the bottom 80% of men, if you make them wait long enough, he’ll give up on that particular prospect. He’ll move on to other prospects. He’ll change his expectations. He’ll change his venue or location. He’ll simply adjust to the conditions on the ground and give up on what he had wanted before.

Many men would be fine husbands and fathers. Since those things are becoming foreclosed to them, more of them have stopped caring and moved on to other pursuits. But if this is a growing trend, it’s not growing fast. I think it looks more like what Lyn87 described, with women of even very low market value still able to marry. Now, those women aren’t marrying very well. But they are still marrying. Pretty much every woman I’ve ever, ever seen who wanted a husband was able to get one.

I think this is in large part driven by men’s thirst. Men are still willing to do what they must to get sex. If that includes waiting, they wait. If it includes settling for an obese bitch who treats them like shit, they do that. That said, I think that men aren’t doing much to go out and actually “land” these women; I suspect a lot of what goes on is female aggressiveness in throwing fast, easy sex at these men for the express purpose of seeking husbands.

As Dalrock has pointed out, it may not even be a conscious strike, but rather a new generation of men not doing the multi-year preparation of becoming family men. Everyone assumed that family men would appear out of nowhere, and ignore that unless a man spends many years preparing for this life, he isn’t going to just turn into one when it is convenient for women.

As the economic implosion continues to accelerate*, fewer men of all ages are prepared over the long run to support a family. A common refrain I’m hearing among young men where I live are variations of “I’m barely able to support myself, let alone anybody else.” It’s also obvious that growing numbers of men of all ages, regardless of the color of pill they’ve swallowed, are instinctively aware of hypergamy and know that any woman they hitch themselves to will, far from being any kind of helpmeet when things get tough, be a ball and chain or an outright hindrance to the family unit’s survival.

Simply stated, growing numbers of men today realize that the future is going to be ugly enough to contend without adding trouble to the mix. Having a spoiled, entitled, contentious bitch added to the burden the world has heaped upon his shoulders is something only a madman would entertain the idea of.

(* I shouldn’t need to remind anyone that most women are as clueless about the natural laws of economics as they are about cause and effect [and of course the two are related]).

Christian sexual morality looks almost indistinct from the ambient culture in North America in all but the most conservative Christian and Jewish sects.

And it’s almost never talked about, but everyone knows it’s there and it’s what’s going on. It’s like an open secret, and everyone is in on it except the beta men and the boys. Everyone knows the girls are inchaste by word, deed and dress. Everyone knows the girls hold the boys in absolute sexual thrall. Male sexual desire is evil, base and immoral; female sexual desire is good, pure and the very pinnacle of morality. The boys are neutered; the girls are celebrated and uplifted. Boys lose and girls win, no matter what either do.

The height of morality is the single mom (because she didn’t abort her baby(ies).

Just below the single mom in moral rectitude is the Wronged Divorced Woman (because she can Do It All with Eyes and Hands Uplifted).

Then at the lofty heights of morality is the “reformed slut”/Prodigal Daughter. She Sees the Error of Her Ways and has Returned to Jeeeezussss to make some lucky man a husband and father to HER children. All she needs to do is cover that tattoo, show a bit of decolletage; and we’ll get her married off tootsweet. If their marriage fails, it’s on him, because Prodigal Daughter is a paragon of moral virtue.

I’m sure it does sound familiar. Ethics, don’tcha know. According to some, men need to be honest and forthcoming with information; but women can play their cards close to the vest. Men need to be ethical; but women do not.

@TFH
“As Dalrock has pointed out, it may not even be a conscious strike, but rather a new generation of men not doing the multi-year preparation of becoming family men. ”

I think it’s that, rather than a strike or mass marriage avoidance. If middle class or upper middle class men want to have kids, marriage still seems like the right approach to almost all of them, and it certainly is best for the kids. But, prior to that, it takes years of study and work to make oneself into a prime earner. As guys more and more see young women throwing themselves at other guys who aren’t doing those things (bad musicians, wannabe actors, etc.), and ignoring the guys who are, many of them aren’t really going to bother to build themselves into “marriage material”, especially when society makes that tougher and tougher every year. Women would rather be “marriage material” than “fling material”, so they assume that men feel the same way. If anyone, most men would rather be perceived as “fling material.” They just don’t grasp the fact that when young men read a quote like the one from that Facebook broad encouraging women to date a string of bad boys in their twenties and then marry a good guy, they don’t think “Hey, I want to be that guy she ultimately marries.” They think “Ok, sign me up to be the bad boy who gets to use her up in her twenties.” Or, even if they’d rather be the former (or some version of both), they aren’t going to work nearly as hard to get there.

Daklrock, I was going to say her intentional evasion of her n and the guys she did and did not sleep with was farcical but you already said it even better.

This topic is advanced social restructuring: How to fundamentally change and ultimately destroy a society by unbalancing the power between genders: Unbalancing the fundamental gender mating strategies:

The male strategy of spread the seed (so many women, so little time) is vilified and regulated in marriage 2.0 (culture treats cheating men like lepers and cheating is almost always considered in property division, even in so called no fault States if it is the man cheating). HOWEVER this was barely regulated at all in marriage 1.0 (men “cheated” without any legal consequence so long as he maintained his wife financially).

The female strategy of optimizing hypergamy (Alpha F.cks/Beta Buck$ or AF/BB) is permitted and even encouraged in marriage 2.0 (girrrrrrl power has insured this along with birth control/abortion for the Carousel AF years and “cash and prizes” divorce incentives for the BB years). HOWEVER, this was powerfully put down by social and legal mechanisms in marriage 1.0 (women were property of the father’s and their chastity was protected for the abbreviated hypergamous AF years since they also married them off young, while stoning of adulterer’s and the absence of any right whatsoever to divorce her husband covered the hypergamous BB years).

Just below the single mom in moral rectitude is the Wronged Divorced Woman (because she can Do It All with Eyes and Hands Uplifted).

And of course churchian “leaders” are masters of elasticity in to define “wrongly divorced” where it applies to women (ONLY to women. Men are never “wrongly divorced;” it is always somehow the sinful bastard’s fault).

Her husband didn’t make her haaaaaaaappy or “spiritually lead” her (where she wanted to go)? Why, she had no choice but to divorce him for failing to meet God’s (read: her) expectations of him. Since her husband’s failure as a “spiritual leader” led her to divorce him, and since divorce is wrong (even though she had no choice but to do it, given his failure), she was “wrongly divorced” and grievously sinned against.

TFH says, “As Dalrock has pointed out, it may not even be a conscious strike, but rather a new generation of men not doing the multi-year preparation of becoming family men. Everyone assumed that family men would appear out of nowhere, and ignore that unless a man spends many years preparing for this life, he isn’t going to just turn into one when it is convenient for women.”

True. And while “You can’t turn a whore in a housewife” is generally true, it is also generally true that, “You can’t turn a Peter Pan into a provider.” (Note that I am using the phrase “Peter Pan” for its alliterative value, and the fact that it became a popular phrase for feminists and white knights to describe guys who saw little point in playing an uneven game.)

Just taking myself as a non-representative sample of one: Once I turned 18, I think it took me about five or six years to banish most of my gamma-tude and get to the point where my Provider status was high enough to attract a very high quality mate – which is precisely what I did at 25. If a man today starts that process when his female age-peers want to step off the carousel and become wives, the women are going to be at the tail-end of their fertility window by the time the 30-year-old slacker becomes a 35-year-old corporate drone with a steady paycheck. Of course the “Strong and Empowered [TM]” women will write long articles in the Atlantic wondering, “Where Have All the Good Men Gone?” in the meantime.

Young women riding the carousel have created rewards for being a “slacker” and disincentives for spending the significant time and effort to signal Provider status, as I and countless other men spent our early 20’s doing in the not-so-distant past. But as today’s women age out of the carousel (it’s a young woman’s game), they’re looking for the guys who are signaling Provider status and not finding them, because their male age-peers saw little reason to acquire that status. Why spend the best years of your life with your nose in the books while the girls in your sister sorority are sexing it up? If a woman can spend the best years of her life in hedonistic pursuits, many guys are going to do it as well. The problem for the women is that they can go from “party-girl” to “wedding bell blues” instantly, while a “dude-bro” can only become a provider worthy of Princess’ attention after years of preparation… starting right about… now. There’s a certain symmetry to it: women make men wait when they’re the hot commodity, then the men make the women wait when the tables are turned.

“1) If I have sex with a woman, or want to have sex with her, I have an obligation to marry her.

2) This woman is really hot and I want to have sex with her.

Put those two together, and the conclusion is inescapable; all that’s left is to convince himself to ignore her tramp status. If she has an ugly past, he tells himself (with encouragement from everyone in the world) that that’s in the past. She’s not like that anymore. She’s a new person (especially if she’s had a “come to Jesus” moment recently). She’s turned over a new leaf. She proved how “new” she is by being honest with him about her past. She’s gotten it out of her system, so he doesn’t have to worry about her cheating. At least it proves she likes sex, so he doesn’t have to worry about a sexless marriage.”

You forgot the biggest rationalization these men have “I AM NOT LIKE THOSE OTHER MEN, I’M SPECIAL”

How they are different, they never really think about, or that every man that has gotten used and thrown away by his wife thought the same thing

Isa says:
July 13, 2014 at 4:07 pmHm, slight modification. Serial monogamy isn’t enough to not be a slut, you also have to be in long relationships (i.e. a year) with each to not be considered a slut. So miss 8 bfs in 6 months== slut, 8 bfs over 30 years!= slut.

Some how I missed this earlier. IMO they are all sluts. If you are unmarried, have n > 1 on your score card and are willing to have n > 2, you are a slut. If you are married and decide to move on to “greener” pastures, you are an adulteress and a slut.

As if on que Chateau Heartiste has this article for us. A 59 year old woman is up set a 50 year old man is not sexually aroused by her body. http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/plums-before-prunes/
The tipping point is not going to be when men get it. The real fun is when the herd shifts and there is a dash for the insulating properties of a husband. When I was 35 I married my wife of 24.a 50 year old man can have a 25 year old girl fiend. A 50 plus woman can not have a 50 year old much less a 25 year old boyfriend especially if he can pull 25 year old pussy. That is going to be hard for a 40 year old woman. As lyn87’s story shows yeah she can get a husband but you can bet your ass no 16 year old girl playing house is married to that guy. But I will say the old limp dick does have game. He never followed her fame even on the wedding day. She left a working man with no gina tingle at all for that. How’s that beta by law working feminist cunts? Women didn’t vote for a reason and they voted in laws to kill the only thing that guides them to a solid beta man.
25 to 40 year old family men (I use that term for marriage ready men that put in the work) marry younger women, have tried to be family man and were punished by the state for it, and /or have had enough of women that while marriageable he is not taking what is on offer MGTOW. The ironic thing is these women will see beta males as creeps any way. (no gina tingle) Surrogacy brought on by the gay marriage thing will be the last of logic for a man to marry. Next thing you know childless spinsters will be treated as bachelors by the tax code with women in their 50 and 60’s working to support themselves and some former meth loser they met that is fucking his crack bitch girlfriend on the side. Enjoy the decline

The seeming lack of interest by the young in women is indeed a puzzle. Are these further possible explanations:

1. The antagonistic attitude of so many women simply puts men off.
2. Co-ed schooling dampens desire.
3. Misandrist Laws warn off all but the most Alpha.
4. The acceptability of Homosexuality encourages men to take the line of least resistance.
5. The decline of dancing.

@TFH, re: research on diminishing returns. I’m not sure but I think there has been a lot done in the context of sexual addiction and porn addiction. It is my understanding that, even in the most extremely jaded of those cases, complete total abstinence for two weeks (or less) suffices to restore the Thirst. Provided it’s just due to overindulgence.

Again I’m not sure, but I think regarding the relationshippy aspects there will definitely be diminishing returns no matter what. I was so … into (? is there a better word yet?) my first wife that even after she tore off my wife goggles and stomped cracks into them, she still looked pretty good to me. It simply isn’t possible for a second pair of wife goggles to work better.

Then “game” it is because we live in real ville. A red pill Christian man with faith is the baddest mutha fucka in the world. (all game is … is the truthful and realistic nature of women. as it plays out in real practice.)

See that is the problem with so called “red pill Christians”. They think because they now know kung fu and go into the ‘matrix’ to fight the good fight kicking virtual posteriors with bullet dodging moves in a “game” that they are on their way to become men of renown. What they fail to realize is that the world they are in isn’t real to begin with. So while red pill guys try to get their head around the fact that the spoon isn’t real they seem to forget that a real Christian man with faith is a man not born in the matrix and will be looking at the green code, laughing his head off at the self styled “baddest mutha fucka in the world” who continuously goes back into the matrix to get their fix rather that live in the real world after taking the red pill. All game is…is fear of the truth… and the truth is that the man using it is unable to govern his life and his relationships as instructed by God because he lacks faith in the Great I AM.

Opus
That list is good. Older men even have loving mothers to use to delusion themselves about the adorableness of females. Todays men 25 and younger are divorce kids with day care and booty calls as the image of mom bad mouthing dad. They love mom because everybody loves their mom.

Cicero game does make a man a man of women. game lets a man see women for what they are. A bad mutha fucka doesn’t get used by the system and damn sure isn’t a chump to some bitch. Ignorance in a beta male is not bliss.

It takes a while for people to react to sweeping societal change in large enough numbers to measure. Women have been delaying marriage for a while. Now men are finally reacting in two ways: the younger ones no longer feel the same urgency to financially prepare to support a family — if all the girls your age say they don’t intend to get married for at least 10 years, what’s the hurry? — and the older ones are realizing that a 35-year-old single mom with 20+ notches on her bedpost really isn’t a good bet.

I know an 18-year-old guy who’s courting an 18-year-old girl who wants nothing more than to marry him and set up house and start making babies, so he’s working hard and saving money to make that possible. But girls like her are few and far between. If she weren’t in the picture, maybe he’d be working part-time for beer money and playing video games all day.

“I am also unsure about the young’uns. I don’t understand how they can go without.” Sex?

How much of this kind of thinking is the result of a hyper-sexualized culture where the importance of sex has been exaggerated beyond all rational reason, especially for men?

Studies on masturbation report significantly more satisfying orgasms than sex for nearly everyone, thats hardly a revelation to anyone here. 20 minutes of genital stimulation (with or without a partner) is optimal for peak orgasm. The typical male orgasm last less than 10 seconds, less than 10 seconds… Just exactly how important should sex with a chubby slut be considering the trouble the average man has to go through to get it? Combine this with the porn epidemic and the fact that most young men are forced to learn to meet their own needs I’m not surprised that many of them actually prefer it. There’s no sense of accomplishment in talking a slut out of her panties even if she’s attractive but their might be a need for a doctor’s visit shortly following.

I’m in my 40’s now so there really is no feeling of urgency but even at 25 I knew money was way more important than fat sluts or even hot ones for that matter and after money came my hobbies. To a clear thinking Christian young man a virginal, submissive, attractive young wife might have been very tempting. Where in the world would I have found one of those? Because I looked.

@ greyghost
“Cicero game does make a man a man of women. game lets a man see women for what they are. A bad mutha fucka doesn’t get used by the system and damn sure isn’t a chump to some bitch. Ignorance in a beta male is not bliss.”

You should rather be a man of God…not game. God lets you see women for what they are…game lets you see women as you want. A God will give the trusting faithful man all the information, power and support he needs to beat any system…game will only provide temporary relief but not remedy the situation. And as a Child of God you will be seen as regal by your Creator… game can do nothing more than get a gut reaction out of a woman’s primal urges. Ignorance in the Bible is no excuse for game bliss.

Cail Corishev…the ultimate in white-knight thinking: “My love for her is so powerful that it will overcome her baggage. She will feel so loved and secure that she won’t possibly pine for the bad old days.”

Often associated with oneitis, by the way. This fantasy is to some extent fed by popular media, such as movies where the True Blue Loyal Guy eventually gets a gurl by patiently waiting. Sorta like a dog, actually.

Hmm. “Super hot slut reformed by the Twu Wuv of a Good Man” – sorta the male equivalent of the hunky-handyman millionaire who just happens to live in the cottage behind the house of the unhaaaapily divorced woman, in a way.

cicero no kidding, a man of god. That is what a Christian man with game is. The pedesatlizing of females is a man thing and is churchian as hell. Do not confuse the understanding of female nature with being a pussy beggar or let churchian indoctrination tell you it is wrong. .

A PUA is generally a skilled whoremonger who’s simply looking to ejaculate in as many women as he finds attractive as frequently as possible. What constitutes “game” is more difficult to define. What I learned and consider fundamental cores of game are simple truths like;

1. Women are not superior to men
2. Being a nice doormat is not attractive to women
3. Women respond on a base level to dominant men who don’t put up with bitchiness
4. Dominance is displayed in strong eye contact, body language, ability to tell a woman (No!) etc
5. A man who has his personal life, appearance, focus together attracts women, work on yourself
6. Confidence is attractive to women and should be based on reality.

These are examples of what I consider game or just basic manhood that every man should have been taught were it not for a society that tries to feminized men.

Opus @ 1:58 pm:
“The seeming lack of interest by the young in women is indeed a puzzle. Are these further possible explanations:

2. Co-ed schooling dampens desire.”

I’d argue differently, that coed schooling is a form of constant titillation… combined with punishments for getting frisky. It’s psychologically crushing to be constantly surround by pretty girls, pictures of pretty girls and lots of sex talk yet rarely be allowed to act on those desires. It’s like forcing a recovering alcoholic to live in a bar… what kind of attitude do you think he’s going to develop about drinking, watching people imbibe constantly but having to restart the 12-step if he takes a sip? The struggle would be so much easier if he could occasionally get away from the constant temptation.

What we’re seeing is young men learning to turn off their sex drives for their own sanity. The gym is full of spandex-clad chicks but you’re a creep if anybody catches you looking. The college girls wear hip-huggers and halter tops but you’re a rapist if your eyes wander below their shoulders. You stand in a supermarket checkout and stare at the ceiling tiles instead of all the carefully positioned glamour magazines. And every second you use the Internet, porn is waiting patiently for your next lapse of self-control… no matter how brief… 24-7.

“”I see a lot of the top guys deliberately choose not to marry. By this, I mean men who have substantial money by age 35, and can date tons of women without strings attached.””

Correct!…..I am one of those guys.As well as my younger brother,our close friends and close business associates.”Booty Calls” are a dime a dozen.There is no way on God’s green earth that I would risk half of everything that I have worked for(let alone family money) on a contract with a woman and the State.I do not do this in my professional life,why the hell would I do this in my personal life.That is financial suicide! Secondly,I would not embark on such a stupid endeavor because,if I married,my wife would assume my surname.There is no way in hell that I would want my surname involved in a divorce proceeding that would embarrass my family name.I have WAY TOO much respect for my father and grandfather to even consider doing this!

@deti

“”Remarriage rates are falling if not cratering””

Yes they are! In fact,to use yourself as an example.On a prior thread you stated(cannot remember the thread…and don’t quote me verbatim)…..”If Mrs.Deti ever blows up our marriage…I will never,ever shack up,get involved or get married to another woman”……I remember this from you because you are not the only guy in our age group that has said this.I have heard this sooooo many times I cannot count them anymore…..and I agree with your statement!

Greyghost: “The man is beta by law. The man is civilized and the law requires him to submit to his wife as it stands now. Doesn’t look like that is working to well.” That’s what I’m getting at. The State is the authority in the man’s home, and that authority favours the woman in all things, and discriminates against the man. The State is hovering over the man’s head every moment of his married life, rendering the man powerless in his own home.

Snowy
slowly but surely the male culture is changeing. See the list Opus posted And check out Mark’s comment to his solution to the state. The slut ,the topic of the original article is a product of the state. I call them laws of Misandry. Some of the reactions to these laws of misandry are MGTOW, (see Mark) ,the PUA to play with the sluts, and the churchians in full supplication to the pussy divine.

This actually makes sense, unless you consider it permanent eunuchization.

Creating eunuchs might well be the goal. Or at least a positive side-effect (although I’m not sure). The only men who aren’t likely to be driven insane by that environment are those who do not lack for female attention- what many around here call “Alphas.” An “Alpha” doesn’t care about the rules or codes or regulations or the like when such things are concerned because he can get away with it. The majority of men, however, cannot. And women don’t want attention from those men anyways. Mayhaps this is merely another filter to protect women from unwanted sexual attention?

“”Add Internet porn to the mix, and yet another segment of younger men have insufficient libido to trouble themselves””

Was reading an article about 3 weeks ago about teenage guys…ages 15 to 19….that have ED?….WTF? I was that age at one time.I have no recollection of ever not being able to “get it up”.You were also that age at one time….any problems?….I assume not! The thesis of the article was that these teens are watching so much internet porn that it is creating ED. The other point in the article was that “the biggest consumers of Viagra are between the ages of 18-25?…..again?…WTF? I was that age once also…so were you….I did not need “a pill”…nor do I need a pill today!

decided to tell me that they “couldn’t” date me because it was morally wrong because I was “still married.”

I wouldn’t have said anything. I would have enjoyed her to the fullest. Of course, that is how I treat all women – they are useful for sex and pretty much that’s it. Married, divorced, single – whatever… I really couldn’t care less, as long as they are young enough to turn me on, and willingly come to my bed, that is all I care about…

A man is by nature a predator, and women are his prey… The predator enjoys the prey animal and uses it for entertainment, nourishment, and pleasure… Only a fool would marry his prey…

@donalgraeme, re: “The only men who aren’t likely to be driven insane by that environment are those who do not lack for female attention”

Yes, but one can self-insulate and sublimate away a lot of it. Based on my own experience, I had figured any male kind of *had* to try not to think about it and try not to act on it and get busy on other stuff after about the first week of puberty, or he would land in jail or the psych ward in short order. It’s still a new thought to me that any substantial fraction of males would be saying “Meh. Whatev.” about sex.

“”The tipping point is not going to be when men get it. The real fun is when the herd shifts and there is a dash for the insulating properties of a husband. When I was 35 I married my wife of 24.a 50 year old man can have a 25 year old girl fiend. A 50 plus woman can not have a 50 year old much less a 25 year old boyfriend especially if he can pull 25 year old pussy””

Awesome post!…Just read the link at Heartiste. I am sending this to my 46 year old sister! I can relate to this.The last time that I was with a woman my own age was when I was 35(just turned 49). And to quote yourself..”when the herd shifts”……What a great time to be a man…and be alive!

But, if you go to her Amazon author profile, you find “She is a divorced mother of two”

Well, GAWWWWWWLEEEE. A divorced old rebel bag who writes to shame a man who doesn’t want to put in into her wrinkled up old body. Given her age, it’s likely that she married the father of her children fairly young and there is a decent chance that she was semi-attractive then. So, if she’d stayed married and been a pleasant wife, she’s still be getting the dick from her husband as he viewed her through the marriage goggles remembering the wife of his youth.

Instead, we have the you go grrrl who found some professional fodder in a dude that should have known better.

@Mark, re: Viagra. It’s been true since it was first on the market that the vast majority of Viagra is consumed recreationally by younger men who don’t need it, and also vastly disproportionately by young gay men. But the majority of first time prescriptions continue to be written for older men, who seldom bother refilling even though it works for them, married to older women. All (dressed) up and nowhere to go (put it) is the catchy reminder of this phenomenon. As far as I know it is still true that the vast majority of Viagra prescriptions are not refilled.

This comment could get ugly but I’ll do my best. Walking the line / riding the fence of current societal boundaries for inspection. Badpainter related a short tale (note secret encoding of opposite of tall tale) from his college days of taking a chick he thought he might be interested in to a dorm house party (iirc) and he didn’t get anything going with her but he found out she had sex with several of his friends and house mates, one at a time, during the party.

It turns out (this is not special pleading, just special knowledge)
1. The majority (yes, really) of women have specifically sexual fantasies/dreams at certain times, leading to orgasm, involving a gang of male appendages plural simultaneously. Essentially none fantasize/dream about sex with serial multiple men, one at a time. N.B. the majority of women’s fantasies do involve one single male figure for the duration of the fantasy, but despite (or because of!) women’s hyperfocus on faces in real life, the fantasy man’s face is featureless/indiscernible. Her (dream) eyes are focused elsewhere anyway.
2. A substantial minority of women, including double digit percentages (yes ,really) of young women in unsupervised drinking situations, have had sex in real life with N > 2 young men in one night, but almost all of *those* are serial train “Next!”, i.e. one at a time, i.e. not simultaneously parallel gang mmmf or whatever.
3. Essentially every woman thinks N > 2 serially in one night is definitely slutty.
4. Every (?) woman thinks N ≥ 2 parallel gang is definitely slutty.
5. There would be huge disagreements among women whether N = 2 serially in one night is necessarily slutty just because of the N.

“Male sexual desire is evil, base and immoral; female sexual desire is good, pure and the very pinnacle of morality. The boys are neutered; the girls are celebrated and uplifted. Boys lose and girls win, no matter what either do. ”

You are correct. This was implied with what I was taught in church.

What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?

Feminists tell us that marriage (to a provider) is a form of prostitution, and they strive to allow a woman the freedom to lose her boring husband (while keeping a slice of hubby’s income and retirement plan), and the sexual integrity to go where her tingling vagina leads her.

The irony is that a lifestyle of following one’s sexual desire – by fucking a succession of losers – resembles prostitution far more closely than marriage does.

“Based on my own experience, I had figured any male kind of *had* to try not to think about it and try not to act on it…”

Right, that’s always been the case but forcing young men to constantly be around scantily clad women (real or virtual) makes self-control much more difficult. Forcing them to simultaneously choose between going fifteen years without sex or quitting Christ and fornicating makes it even MORE difficult. What young Christian men have to go through these days is toxic.

We’ve done it before, though. Ancient Rome was worse than this and we still pulled through. Back then, Churchians had actual temple prostitutes and Oedipus complexes.

Bee @ 4:52 pm:
“What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?”

In a word, Game. Avoid the immoral parts like plate-spinning and focus on concepts like the apex fallacy, hypergamy, fitness tests, teasing, beta orbiting and slut tells like tattoos. Throw in relevant Bible stories like Samson’s idiocy with Delilah and Bathsheba Queen of Golddiggers. And teach them that pretty women are the thin ones with long hair and formed chests. The guys already know this but they need to hear it. All they get told elsewhere is “don’t judge me because I’m a BBW! I’m pretty, too! You are so shallow!”

“Would you encourage the young men to marry young?”

Wrong question. I would encourage the young women to marry young and teach young men about both game and the realities of no-fault divorce. The men make informed decisions and the women are paired off before they’re ruined by the slut-industrial complex.

Calhoun Mouse Utopia. Very interesting, complete with MGTOW’s and the collapse of meaningful male roles do to social pressures (in this case population pressure). We are witnessing the orchestrated collapse of those roles in Western Civilization. The “first death” is fast approaching as we see the onset of “metrosexuals” and grass-eaters and brood destroying females.

What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?

Not that Bee asked me, but my answers would be:

1. Stop patronizing churchian franchises. As young men, they HATE you and consider everything about you to be evil, sinful, and vile. Why in God’s name would go where you’re not loved or wanted? If you need spiritual nourishment (and you most certainly do), get together amongst yourselves, or get together with older, established, married Christian men with families and study the Bible (you certainly won’t do THAT if you comtinue to practice churchianity) and pray hard for God’s guidance for your lives.

2. As an extension of Piece of Advice Number 1, let anything that any churchian CEO or BoD member has to say about dating, marriage, or sex go right in one ear and out the other. I GUARANTEE YOU that any advice or guidance that they give you will be misleading at best or flat-out contrary to Scripture at worst. Besides, if what they had to say was of any lasting value or was of any spiritual import, would you be in the predicament you’re in now?

Anyone who would take another person’s personal life and showcase it for your own benefit is a morally incompetent individual. I feel bad for anyone who has the displeasure of knowing you. You social media stalked this woman and then thought it was a good idea to use your shallow perspective about HER life and criticize it on your blog? Someone you don’t even know. What the fuck is wrong with you? Seriously you and everyone who thinks you’ve done some great service by posting such a piece of shit article needs a reality check. Since you’re someone who seems so keen on conservative values, why don’t you grow up and act like a respectful man. Although, it’s pretty obvious you’re just another bitter dude who couldn’t bend women to his will. Another guy who thinks that he should just reach out his hand and a woman should happily grab it and be grateful for his awkward and inappropriate advances. Get a life, gain some perspective, and grow up.

So what I don’t understand is your goal in writing this. You do know the person you’re writing about is a human being. Okay, you disagree with, well everything about who she is down to even her tattoos (you all do realize than 60 percent of all folks under the age of 35 now have at least one tattoo, right? Is it 1954 where you all live?) but she is still a human being. A human being who writes with her real name, about her real experiences. She doesn’t hide behind a fake internet moniker. Does her writing, on a website you clearly read only to disagree with, in any way decrease your amount of whatever it is you are looking for? Personal liberty? A stable nuclear family? I just don’t understand what your goal is or how you hope to reach it by what you’ve written.

“To a clear thinking Christian young man a virginal, submissive, attractive young wife might have been very tempting. Where in the world would I have found one of those? Because I looked.”

My wife has been told by a friend from our church singles group, now in her late 30’s, that she just “can’t find any nice guys and is really tired of dating” She isn’t just pretty, but drop-dead gorgeous, a slender Scottish redhead with a flawless complexion and can easily pass for being 10 or possibly 15 years younger. Over the past 15 or so years she’s been courted by dozens of men in our church or singles group, a few being divorced professionals who haven’t learned their lesson: a CPA, a gastroenterologist, an engineer who retired at 34, an RN, several tradesmen (a few own businesses) and the assorted beta orbiters in their 20s who can’t get the time of day from women their own age. Each one had a ridiculously minor issue physically or in personality. While dating these men in our church and getting free dinners, car repairs and trips to supplement her minimal income at a gym, she’s carried on a 14 year, on and off relationship with a guy who seems to have no goals other than playing unsuccessfully in a local band. He occasionally comes to church with her and cheats with OTHER women in the singles group. She is completely, totally perplexed about how she is in her 30s and unmarried. The church, through the pastor and all her friends (except my wife) continue to support her bad decisions by telling her not to “settle”. She claims she’s really serious about getting married now because her guitar player just got incarcerated. But he’ll be OK. The youth pastor’s wife just got a divorce and is now visiting him in jail.

I decided something during my first marriage, when I observed not one but two female adolescences. Routinely, one stepdaughter would be “too sick” to get out of bed and go to school, but NOT too sick to watch TV, play video games, read worthless teen magazines, etc., with a fully call-the-Pope level of miraculous cure right around the time their friends got out of school (so, their cellphones could be expected to risk overuse meltdown). I decided that if a child was too sick to go to school in the morning, they would guaranteed be WAY too sick to watch TV, go online, eat dessert foods/fun food like pizza or other fast/junk foods, text/call friends (about anything other than homework they missed, in a brief and monitored call), etc., until the next day, when they had gone to school and stayed there all day.

Likewise, if a chronically low-sex wife has yet another a case of the vapors WRT sex with her husband, I don’t figure she’s really in position to go out shopping (includes online), entertain guests, watch soap operas/Oprah/Lifetime, possibly even eat, until that’s demonstratably over with. Before any feminazis reading this explodie in fury as content-free as it is profane and loud, imagine how husbands routinely go to work at jobs when hardly anywhere near 100%. If men only worked as often as willfully withholding, faithless wives gave in on the sex they agreed by implication to provide in their very wedding vows*, most of the country would quickly starve to death.

No court would enforce an all-industry perpetual noncompete agreement held by an employer that laid off an employee without cause, yet that’s what such wives think they hold on their husband’s sexuality.

Freebird:I forget the name the jews had for a jew that sold one out to the SS,but it is the same principle.The practice was not restricted to death camps. Unfortunately, I don’t know the Yiddish term for “collaborator”.

GunnerQ says “What we’re seeing is young men learning to turn off their sex drives for their own sanity.”

I’ve heard of this. On a recent camping trip, one of the guys was telling us about how his 28 year old son had started taking antidepressants. His son has never suffered from depression but told his dad he was able to say the right things and get a prescription. He’s taking them to try and kill his sex drive because he’s simply tired of pursing women with no success. The dad is upset and angry. His son is reasonably attractive, a working professional with a decent income, but all the girls he asks out turn him down, or if he does go out they want to have sex right away and his son wants to wait until marriage. So instead of being tempted with porn or fornication he’s cutting out the source of his temptation. We were all talking about the morality of this. Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?

“What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?”

Read a chapter of the book of Proverbs every day. For ever. It’s all in there. Learn it, love it, internalize it, do it.

“Would you encourage the young men to marry young?”

Yes, relatively speaking. And his bride would ideally be at least a few years younger. However, a man needs a direction – a mission – in life before he marries. No one can lead without a direction, because direction is the first thing a leader provides the people for whom he is responsible. And one can’t provide what one does not have.

The whole bit about how anonymous comments are cowardice except for the Official Victims “speaking truth to power” is just so 20th century. And bonus hubris points for the hollow, empty claim I’m willing to present my ideas publicly because I’m proud to publish the ideas that I do and use them to create a positive public reputation. Sluttly slutting slut is proud of her positive public reputation, but…no commenting on her site, no, no, no.

One thing we learn from history is how paranoid the left is. Even when they have total, utter power – Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot – the left is continually in a dither about how much daaanger lurks out there from Them[*], the agents of evil conformity. And so the left always creates an ever tightening straight-jacket of conformity, which must be applied to all of society, in order to achieve true liberation. Feminism is lefitsm, therefore it is no surprise when feminists tend to act like Maoist wannabes, complete with re-education session.

She should post up some tit and try and when us over with sex. Then her champion will emerge and whiteknight for her and say bad things about Dalrock. he’s old and white and married to a doormat that tolerates his misogyny

OscarRead a chapter of the book of Proverbs every day. For ever. It’s all in there. Learn it, love it, internalize it, do it.

I’ve read that book. There is a lot of wisdom in there. Young men should especiallly read it, because unlike standard teachings in the modern church, Proverbs bluntly points out that there are bad women who do bad things, and men should beware of them. But it is not all in there, obviously…

There’s a certain symmetry to it: women make men wait when they’re the hot commodity, then the men make the women wait when the tables are turned.

There is a brutal, ironic symmetry to it. The women are implicitly choosing to bring less (youth, chastity, etc) to the table for marriage, with the assumption that since all of their sisters are doing it the men of their cohort will have no choice but to suck it up. If we are realistic, this has until fairly recently been a very effective strategy. But this has changed over time. What the women making it a point not to waste an extra day of their youth more than necessary on their future husband aren’t considering is the men who meet them in future-land will also bring much less to the table provider wise. Both will have to take it or leave it, in a dysfunctional race to the bottom.

She should post up some tit and try and when us over with sex. Then her champion will emerge and whiteknight for her and say bad things about Dalrock. he’s old and white and married to a doormat that tolerates his misogyny

She’s got a selfie up with peach fuzz on her chin and hair in her nose. Showing her saggy dugs would probably be a good start, at least in convincing onlookers that she might be authentically female. (I suspect a tranny…)

I’m still waiting for all her internet slurpfreaks to appear. I must admire any man who would go to bat for such a wildebeest, and don’t doubt his thirsty ass is out there, someplace….

I should correct my above statement. The question wasn’t “Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?” but rather to avoid immorality. I want to make clear that my friend’s son wants to get married, but he simply can’t find any non-virgins and doesn’t think his prospects are going to get better any time soon. About six months ago he did strike up a friendship with an 19 year old who was (presumably) a virgin and things seemed to be moving along but it got quashed by the girl’s parents and church elders who thought that his interest was inappropriate given the age difference. After that he had had enough and started down the chemically eunuch route.

There is another risk women playing the AFBB/lane change game, and that is the risk that someone wise to their game will decide to sign up for the free samples with no intention of buying.

I’m sure that plate-spinning 40 and 50 year old men exist already, and will become more common in the future. The soft harem may not be marriage, but it is better than cats. But it will come at a cost, both short term and long term.

There is brutal symmetry in the greedy con artist being conned themselves.

There is an old saying my father taught me: “You can’t cheat an honest man”. As the years go by I have come to see more and deeper truth in that.

Think of the woman CH posted up crying about some guy not being able to get it up for her old body. This woman here with this viral judgment of her slut behavior. Hell she is sending her own followers over here via twitter. Both of these women were married.
Married men please show these to your loving wives One woman has aged out and has no business on the dating scene, 56? goddamn. This other woman (brink) is completely clueless of the fool she is showing herself to be she had eight guys sample the stink hole and 2 hit and ran out and she complained . It gets worse from here as she ages each day and more and more get the red pill. Most of the available men are divorced guys that were married to her so to speak.
As a mra warrior type these women need to be duplicated over 25% of the female population.

Thanks for the heads up on the tweet Boxer. That is funny stuff. I checked the mod bin and there are only two haters so far, here and here . My wife’s comment was “The women will see the tweet and say I’ve got your back sister! Then they will read the post and think I don’t want to get judged too!“. Given that Ms Brink only managed to round up a total of two haters after putting out a public tweet for help six hours ago, I suspect my wife is right on that.

Note that Ms. Brink’s reaction proves one of the core points of the post. Here is a woman who ostensibly embraces the most unconventional of sexual norms (If I understand her current article correctly she is now a lesbian). Yet she is deeply troubled that someone might not see her as anything but sexually virtuous. Why does she care so much what a middle aged married Christian man thinks about her definition of sexual morality?

Why does she care so much what a middle aged married Christian man thinks about her definition of sexual morality?

Dalrock
This is what I had in mind in this one instance of a Christian man with game. It has power. No church would do as you have done on your blog. Just telling the truth and not going along with the lie.

“I’ve read that book. There is a lot of wisdom in there. Young men should especiallly read it, because unlike standard teachings in the modern church, Proverbs bluntly points out that there are bad women who do bad things, and men should beware of them. But it is not all in there, obviously…”

As I’ve pointed out many times, the Book of Proverbs spends nearly three chapters (near the beginning), plus many individual verses scattered throughout, warning men which women to avoid. It only spends one chapter (the very last one) describing the ideal wife.

Among the many lessons a man should learn from those facts is that in order to attract a Proverbs 31 woman, he needs to be a Proverbs 1-30 man. So, yes, as far as what matters, it’s in there.

Above you quite correctly and insightfully report from the front lines:

“There is a brutal, ironic symmetry to it. The women are implicitly choosing to bring less (youth, chastity, etc) to the table for marriage, with the assumption that since all of their sisters are doing it the men of their cohort will have no choice but to suck it up. If we are realistic, this has until fairly recently been a very effective strategy. But this has changed over time. What the women making it a point not to waste an extra day of their youth more than necessary on their future husband aren’t considering is the men who meet them in future-land will also bring much less to the table provider wise. Both will have to take it or leave it, in a dysfunctional race to the bottom.” –Dalrock

That precise “brutal, ironic symmetry” powers the humor in the conclusion of my now-famous poem which I penned during a more lucid moment, under the guidance of my state-subsidized Ritalin prescription. See if you and your flock might be able to parse the humorous irony in the form of the “reversal-of-fortune” that the once-empowered young lady experiences when she hits 29:

“da professional womenz ode”

SPECIAL WEDDING EDITION

alpha fucks and beta bucks
dat is how we roll
da butthexting cockass we fucks and sucks
and in our anuthes it doth deosul
alpha fucks and beta bucks
it is da way of da fed
to transfer assetss to dose who butthext
cuckold dose who pay for our bread
beta bucks and alpha fucks
it’s what day teach us we;’re entitled too
da assetts from betas we plucks
after da alphas desol us through our hole for poo
lzozozlzzolzlzlzlz

SPECIAL EDITION WEDDING CHORUS lzozozozo

i gave it 4 free when i was younger hotter tighter
back in college when i was thirty pounds lighter
can’t hardly wait to butthext yyou in divorce court
and have you fund my favorite buttehxtual sport
gonna buy sexy lingerie with all dat alimonee
fuck & suck alpha cocks as ur beta cock is just 4 pee
tee hee hee teee heee heee l
tee hee hee teee heee heee !
i’m da modern liberated womanz
i buttehxt before and after marriage
and during it too, but not with you
but with the father of da baby in da carriage
lzozozzlozoz

cuckold da betas cockhold da alphas
datsz what day taught us in mba grad school
as da feiisnsits see no truth nor justice in their laws
and say da great books for menz was all fools.
yes, yes, i did very good on my gmats
dey bernenakifed my soul away, left me with cats

About six months ago he did strike up a friendship with an 19 year old who was (presumably) a virgin and things seemed to be moving along but it got quashed by the girl’s parents and church elders who thought that his interest was inappropriate given the age difference. After that he had had enough and started down the chemically eunuch route.

I can’t believe IBB hasn’t chimed in yet with “serves the pervert right for trying to rob the cradle! That girl needs to be slutting it up with dick her own age first!”

I also don’t doubt for a second that her parents or her pastor would rather see her ride the carousel than *GASP* marry a mature Christian provider. Par for our diseased society.

While at the clubhouse on Martha’s Vineyard waiting for the back nine to free up a bit, I overheard two central bankelzozolzrslzozozol talking. (I found my Ritalzozozilzozl! It was under the rontsz seztz of my TESLA ROADSTERZLZOZOZOOZOZZLZOZOZOOZ ozlzlozozlzo.

Anywho da two central bankertsterzz were luaghing, as one said,

“We invented political correctness so we could sue men for complimenting a woman’s hair in the workplace, while we were butthetxing her and taping it in secretzozlzolzz. lzozolzloolzololzozozo.”

da GBFM joined in da laughterz zlzozozoozozlzzz and dey bought da GBFM a martinziiz!! delivered by a bartender in a bikzinziieizlzoo!!!

stringtheory, so you say the son of the man of your acquaintance is 28 and he was getting serious with a 19-year-old, and her parents and her church elders quashed it? I cannot imagine… I have a niece who was like that: a 19-year-old virgin who wanted to get married and have kids while she was still young. She was studying agronomy when she met a guy who was 27 or 28, and they got engaged and married in relatively short order with (nearly) everyone’s enthusiastic support. He had done a stint or two in the Navy and was using the G.I. Bill to pay for his college, which is where they met. He was/is a devout young man who saved himself for marriage – they have two young daughters now and everyone seems to be doing well. They go to the same church as my wife and I, in fact, and the pastor doesn’t shy away from teaching on Ephesians 5: 22-33. My niece is very bright, and as the eldest child or her parents she is very strong-willed, so she has to consciously work at being submissive. Her mother did/does not model wifely submission, but she can now observe my wife doing so, since they live near us now. The fact that her husband is a veteran who is nine years older than she is probably helps her to have a submissive attitude. If he was a wimp it would be much harder for her, I suspect.

By interfering in their business because of a trivial age difference, the “adults” in your story may have done irreparable harm to both of them.

Note that I have never threatened her, and I didn’t out personal information. The information I linked to was on her flickr account under her own name, and her personal blog, also under her own name. I also referenced her article on Gawker, published under her own name. None of it was remotely private. If anyone sees someone in the comments here threatening her please note this and I’ll remove the offending comment, but what she is accusing me of is a lie.

Am I the only one who has noticed this trend among (mostly) white Norte Amerikanas on the cusp of or already into middle age who go “bat for the other team” when their chaotic, dysfunctional, BSC lives reach critical mass and they can’t get male attention to save their lives? I’ve personally known a half dozen frivorcing women over just the past two years who did this. Apparently two of them were so fargone that they couldn’t even interest the most predatory of dikes, as they soon announced to all who would listen (and to those who wouldn’t and didn’t want to know) that they were now “celibate.”

If this is indeed a trend, then AWs are even more hopelessly broken then I thought.

If anyone sees someone in the comments here threatening her please note this and I’ll remove the offending comment, but what she is accusing me of is a lie.

Please. No one is threatening anyone. It’s amazing how little it took to make the poor girl melt-down like this.

Mizz Vipond Brink is proving to be a very rich source of free entertainment, and none of us want her to cease or desist from her histrionics. Let’s make twitter a welcoming, safe space for her, and all other self-righteous feminist doofuses, who serve us up with so many easy chuckles.

Dalrock: “Why does she care so much what a middle aged married Christian man thinks about her definition of sexual morality?”

Daddy issues, by definition.

Nailed it.

Also, I see that Oscar did a deft take-down of “Joseph” while I was otherwise occupied. Feminists don’t seem to understand that respect is earned, not demanded. Indeed women tend to have a harder time understanding that than men do, since females usually get deferential treatment from birth, while males learn hard and early that respect comes with a price – so I suspect that “Joseph” is a woman – or one of those court eunuchs in the Queendom of Feminism who wishes to curry favor with their betters. Anyway, if Little Miss Slutty-Pants wishes to engage in highly inappropriate behavior in public – using her blog to trumpet her conduct to anyone who cares to observe, then she has to take the criticism with the praise. And while demanding that Dalrock and others treat Mizz Brink with respect, (probably) she flies here on her broom slinging insults at all and sundry. Respect is a two-way street, “Joseph.” Dalrock and most of the men here have earned it – Mizz Brink has earned little but contempt. She can be redeemed, but unless and until she walks that path, she remains an object lesson: the kind of woman a wise man ought to avoid.

Lyn87: The attitude for delaying marriage is pretty widespread. During our conversation most of the other fathers agreed that a 28 year old shouldn’t be dating someone 9 years younger when there were so many women in the church (like that very attractive redhead in her 30s) who couldn’t find men. I wonder if we should just start getting all single men in the church on libido killing drugs until they hit 35 when their SMV is higher.

Let me do a little preventative translating for anyone taking Ms. Brink’s complaints seriously. The following (broken up) comment by JDG was in upwards of three separate tweets:

“So if any of my female-friendly followers want to *go tear this blogger and his commenters apart* please be my guest” (these are Brink’s words that JDG is quoting–if anyone is using threatening language, it is she, but we don’t scary easily, especially considering the two harmless hamsters she unleashed on us)

“What are they going to use to deconstruct common sense? How does one go about defending unfaithfulness, betrayal, cuckolding, and adultery?” (Absolutely nothing objectionable here. Par for internet discourse)

“I’d hope she actually reads something here and gets a clue. She has no idea what kind of disaster she is unleashing upon herself and those that may care about her.” (JDG is not making a threat. He’s making a judgment. Not a reportable offense.)

Glad to have a married middle aged white man enlightening me about feminism

Well, well, well. It seems Mizz Brink is doing that just fine all by herself. According to her actions, feminism is making bad decisions, shattering the lives of other people, breaking your vows, bragging about it, then getting all pouty-faced when someone expresses a different opinion. S what does a good feminist do then? Why, she calls for the big, strong moderator man to beat up her “oppressor.”

Wait… I thought women could be soldiers and cops and fire-fighters? You mean now they are incapable of engaging in a simple discussion without getting the vapors?

Seriously, sweetheart (I know you’re reading), nobody here threatened you or your loved ones in the slightest… and you weren’t outed here, either – you write in a public forum under your own name. Grow a pair, will you?

Wait… I thought women could be soldiers and cops and fire-fighters? You mean now they are incapable of engaging in a simple discussion without getting the vapors?

She’s quite the strong, empowered, independent feminist, no? First she fruitlessly campaigns to censor the internet, and then makes false accusations, all to distract her readers from the fact that she’s a poor writer and shallow thinker, who can’t refute a basic rebuttal to her inane articles.

Thanks for that story about little red, very amusing classic tale of pricing ones self out of the market and a whole lot of fools who paid too much for nothing. Are we to believe that little red has remained unmolested? I’ve dated her type but have yet to meet one who claimed true ‘virtue’.

“We were all talking about the morality of this. Is it wrong to kill one’s sex drive to avoid marriage or immorality?”

I don’t think it is, although that man’s son could be playing with fire by using prescription drugs without a doctor’s supervision.

I swallowed the Red Pill early, at age 13. The girls were, to be perfectly blunt, assholes, and I hated how the other guys would chase them to the four corners despite that. Aside from that, I had the uncanny feeling that the majority of tnose girls would never grow out of that “phase”; two decades later, I feel like I’ve been proven right.

As a result, my levels of self-control have been much higher than the average man’s, and the God-given desire for sex – it’s taken a while for that not to sound like an oxymoron – has only been a source of distraction and sin. I know that some people claim that it can be “channeled” in other ways, but that always sounded condescending and reeked of New Age religion to me. And as Paul himself said in Corinthians, it’s perfectly okay to remain single and to not be intimate with a woman. Even so, the whole MGTOW thing is a radical idea to many people, including that guy’s father.

That’s too bad… I’d almost be willing to bet that the 28-year-old man had tried to establish relationships with many of those other women, only to be rejected because they weren’t ready for marriage, and/or he backed away from them because they were unsuitable to become wives and mothers because of a history of sluttery or an unwillingness to stay within the parameters of Biblical marriage.

So now a 28-year-old guy has to burn for… how long?… and the 19-year-old woman will likely be pushed down a path of sexual temptation before she is deemed “old enough” to marry.

I know that some people claim that it can be “channeled” in other ways, but that always sounded condescending and reeked of New Age religion to me.

Freud called that type of channeling “sublimation”, but he went on to point out that it only happens in highly developed civilizations. Basically, all the technology you see around you is concretized libido: all our computers, bridges, roads, buildings, works of high art and literature, etc. were created by men who were motivated by eros (love of their wives/girlfriends) to build things.

When the sorts of free love stuff erupts in a society, that society collapses. The forces that kept society running and advancing are dependent upon controlling individual sexual expression. Herbert Marcuse called the sort of hedonism we see today “repressive desublimation”. It’s the inverse of Freud’s civilizing force. By allowing people to have unregulated sex, and promoting constant sexual excitement, the powers that be can sell consumers stuff they don’t need and manipulate them into doing things they wouldn’t otherwise do, which is harmful in the long run; and this is the repressive part of the so-called “freedom” that entices people to slut it up on the carousel.

Basically, the canalization you’re talking about is only possible in a healthier society, where we don’t see trashy erotica on television constantly, or have books like “fifty shades of grey” on every bookshelf, or have huge billboards with naked chicks showing you their tits on them. You can’t really channel your libido in modern America, unless you want to go live in the woods as a hermit, because keeping you in a constant state of sexual excitement is the way large corporations keep you from thinking about life critically.

“You can’t really channel your libido in modern America, unless you want to go live in the woods as a hermit, because keeping you in a constant state of sexual excitement is the way large corporations keep you from thinking about life critically.”

Boxer, great point. Some of the men in our discussion (I’m sure few of which got married after 25) were puzzled about any guy trying to kill his sex drive chemically. Why not just plow all that energy into making oneself a better prospect by working harder at one’s school and career? The point is, this guy is already a successful engineer (he works for the city, I think he’s a civil engineer) 7 years now. Why would any guy trying to serve God by abstaining from extramarital sex continue torturing himself? He’s already done the Biblical thing, pursuing women and trying to channel his drives properly in marriage. Time to throw in the towel and live essentially a biologically monastic life.

I should mention that his dad said he got this idea about taking antidepressants from a work associate. His friend did have depression and made an excellent recovery, but the thing he was most excited about was no longer having any interest in women and all the aggravation that went along with it.

“He made threats” – a fave go-to lie of the Female Imperative, another form of “Let’s You And Him Fight”. Popular with sluttly sluts who don’t like to have their sluttitude pointed out too clearly, I’m sure.

Marx, Engels and others dreamed of a classless society, and in a way we have achieved that: a society with no class, no class whatsoever. The OP is a case in point. I’ve now known several men who wound up divorced, and none of them started screwing around…er…”dating” until the decree was final. One of those “class” issues.

Slutty sluts who can’t wait for a few months for their divorce to slut around are just skank-ho sluts. Nothing personal, mind you, it’s just the Way of the Slut.

Her whining about ‘her family’ and ‘middle aged white men’ reveal what she hoped was her deepest secret : She is deeply worried about what her parents (who are probably decent, normal people) will think when they find out about her promiscuity. Of course, this did not occur to her when she posted the information online, but now things that this blog article has somehow made things public, and that her parents will feel deep shame about how their daughter is a slut.

Very astute.

I tend to think that most of the behavioral problems I laugh at (including many of the more dramatic people in the manosphere) are the end result of a life lacking parental guidance. No one with a half-decent father would want him to come across written articles and trashy “selfies”, like those that our heroine has made a career out of publishing on the internet.

Woke up to the sound of pouring rain
Heartiste would whisper and I’d think of you
And all the tears Dalrock cried – they called my name
And when you needed me, da GBFM came through

Paint a picture of blog posts gone by
When Matt King went blind and you would make me see
I’d stare a lifetime into Boxer’s eyes
So that I knew that you were there for me
Time after time you were there for me

Remember Rollo Tomasi – walking hand in hand
Love letters in the sands – I remember you
And through the sleepless nights, through every endless day
I wanna hear IBB say, “I remember you.”
-Sebastiainz BAchhus lzozozozo

Boxer, great point. Some of the men in our discussion (I’m sure few of which got married after 25) were puzzled about any guy trying to kill his sex drive chemically. Why not just plow all that energy into making oneself a better prospect by working harder at one’s school and career? The point is, this guy is already a successful engineer (he works for the city, I think he’s a civil engineer) 7 years now. Why would any guy trying to serve God by abstaining from extramarital sex continue torturing himself? He’s already done the Biblical thing, pursuing women and trying to channel his drives properly in marriage. Time to throw in the towel and live essentially a biologically monastic life.

I’m assuming/hoping that he got the medication from a physician, with whom he consults on a regular basis. These antidepressants are said to have some pretty bizarre side-effects, occasionally (not that I am either an MD or a consumer of the products, I’ve just heard scuttlebutt). It’s often unwise to self-medicate on the advice of friends.

It is interesting to ponder a religious interpretation of reducing one’s sex drive through pharmaceuticals. I’d think that authority could swing both ways, looking at this as a “becoming a eunuch for heaven’s sake” or, just as easily, as a form of birth control (which many interpretations prohibit).http://www.bartleby.com/7/1/8.html

I’ll confess that if I had it to do over again, I might wish for such a solution. Most of the trouble and chaos of my teen years was due to sex (more specifically, the distributors of it). I am hopeful that this solution proves livable for the young chap.

I’m bloggin’ this tonight,
You’re probably gonna start a fight.
I know this can’t be right.
Hey baby come on,
I loved you endlessly,
When tweeted you weren’t there for me.
So now it’s time to leave and make it alone
I know that I can’t take no more
It ain’t no lie
I wanna see you out that door
Baby, bye, bye, bye…

Bye Bye
Don’t wanna be a fool for you
Just another player in your game for two (more life twenty lzozozolz)
You may hate me but it ain’t no lie,
Baby, bye, bye, bye…
Bye Bye
Don’t really wanna make it tough,
I just wanna tell you that I had enough.
It might sound crazy,
But it ain’t no lie,
Baby, bye, bye, bye

I think I did it again
I made you believe we're more than just friends
Oh baby
It might seem like a crush (marriage)
But it doesn't mean that I'm serious
'Cause to lose all my senses
That is just so typically me
Oh baby, baby

[CHORUS:]
Oops!…I did it again (And got mariedz)
I played with your heart, got lost in the game (and got marriedz)
Oh baby, baby
Oops!…You think I'm in love
That I'm sent from above
I'm not that innocent. –britney spearz lzozozoooz

HEY DALORCKSZASZ!!!

i thinkz dat in churhc MARK DRISCOLLZ shoul djust play da videos of N SYNC and Britney SPEARSZ and EMINME EMINEMZ AND Dr. DRESZ And

Boys would call the girls
And girls would turn them down
Staying married was the only way to work your problems out

Hey, whatever happened to waitin’ your turn
Doing it all by hand,
‘Cause when everything is handed to you
It’s only worth as much as the time put in
It all just seemed so good the way we had it
Back before everything became automatic

For real and for serious, the fuck business is it of any of yours when or whom someone *you don’t know* dates? For that matter, the fuck business is it of yours when or whom *anyone dates*? Seriously. Y’all need to find some other shit to occupy your time.

+1 to the idea of going through Proverbs with your kids. That’s what I’m doing right now with my older ones, and it’s going pretty slow (about 5 or 6 verses each night, which takes 30-40 mins), because almost every verse provokes a really interesting conversation.

Part of my motivation for doing so is that I was so absolutely and painfully ignorant well into adulthood (my parents simply didn’t ever teach me anything useful, and I was slow in realizing it), and that led to a lot of bad decisions in my teens and 20’s. So I’m doing my best to teach my kids the need for knowledge and wisdom, and to cultivate a love of learning. Of course I will do this imperfectly, but they’re already miles ahead of where I was at the same age.

(BTW, we’re going through the whole Bible, but halfway through Leviticus we decided to take a break and go through Proverbs.)

Regarding the idea of chemically reducing one’s sex drive in order to reduce temptation, I sympathize, but in some ways that’s just like birth-control pills — an attempt to solve one problem by creating others. TANSTAAFL.

I once read the heartbreaking and true story of a married man who wanted (seriously) to get castrated. Why? Because his wife only wanted to have sex once every couple of months, and even then it was unsatisfying (big surprise). As a result, temptation was driving him nuts (so to speak), and castration was his hope for relief. He mentioned the idea to his wife; she didn’t care one way or the other. He got talked out of the operation by a pastor, though I don’t know what happened after that. Whatever the outcome, I’m sure it wasn’t good.

As I said, I sympathize. I’m in a mostly sexless marriage myself. But mind-altering drugs are a bad idea, even with a prescription.

To keep the record straight, families of my grandfathers were also the target of the “Hunger Plan”, but they were fortunate enough to live in rural areas at the time of German occupation. I understand that starving people are less likely to be morally upright.

I was looking at the Vip* girls photos (as that looks like a pretty firm body to me) and noticed something of considerable interest; her third finger (not counting the thumb) is considerably longer then her first. That is normal in men but with women femininity ensures that the lengths are reversed – except in the cases of some rather masculine women.

This is to the Christian men who’ve written here condemning this woman, calling her all manner of hate-filled things. I’ve never encountered anything less Christ-like on the internet. What about this?

8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

This comment is going to come across as white knighting, so apologies in advance.

Read through a number of Rebecca Brinks articles, and this is what I have taken away from what she herself has publicly written.

She’s been in a committed monogamous relationship since she was 18. She got married roughly three years ago to that same man, and at the time was terrified of doing so but didn’t want to lose the invested time from before then. Between then and her divorce she had never had a drink.

Sometime in the past year or so, she got tattoos. she came out as bisexual at the age of 14. I’m assuming she had a few relationships between then and her ex.

She also spent three years working her ass off as a student and full time job while trying to make her committed relationship work.

She’s a feminist, leftist, lapsed catholic. Her articles are also either hysterical or heavily focused on over the top emotionalism. “Girls talk”.

So she’s probably around 27, has a guilt complex, suffering because of her failed marriage, confused about her sexuality. Now trying to do all the things she abstained from when she tried to go the good girl route, hoping that cutting loose will help. Basically this is a complex human being struggling to find love and some kind of a fulfilling life.

We also know that she speaks lies given what she has said about Dalrock

Now I am not writing this to garner sympathy from RVB. My understanding of women is that my comment up to this point would ironically make me into a prime target of hers.

And I am not arguing with anything Dalrock has said in this article. I am in full agreement. No question, she’s a slut.

I am writing this to correct the impression of one or two of the commenters here on what a slut is.

We look at a sluts as though they are women who have lived perfect lives under excellent guidance with every good thing made available. Then in a moment of pure spite they dash it all to the ground with a malicious smile and a muhu-hahaha

But that isn’t real life. In real life a jerk is not just someone who has an easy choice and intentionally chooses evil just to mess with everyone. I have no doubt some people are in fact like that, but most of us would like to do good.

When we call a woman a slut, we are not saying they are malicious, or hateful, we are specifically judging her sexual behavior as being counter civilizational and destructive to families. That she is failing in her duty to society as a whole.

RVB is probably a great girl in real life. She’d be wonderful to have as a friend. RVB is also a slut. Probably 90% of Western women are at this point are sluts (and I am being generous). Part of the reason the situation is like this because of gutless muddle headed weak male thinking that does not properly and firmly call out that behavior. The men of this generation, I am sorry to say, are gutless faithless shallow supplicating cowards especially towards our brothers.

We men need to get it through out heads that civilized behavior only applies in a civilized environment. This is not a civilized environment (at least on the sexual level). Just because we have some of the trappings and forms of sexual civilization does not make us civilized in that regard any more than the trappings and rituals of combat make gang wars civilized.

There are no laws or rules protecting men. Society, in the form of Churchian pastors (and their Jewish counterparts) have also completely and totally abandoned their men even while shaming and deceiving them. Most men, married and otherwise, will not support you if you are in the he middle of a divorce. Your support network will dry up and you will be left to die without anyone showing the slightest concern.

What this means is that you must learn how to fight (not just physically although you had better learn that too) and stand up for yourself. You must find out how the system can get you, and shore up those vulnerabilities. You must stop being a sucker. I am not saying you should contribute to the chaos, but your needs, specifically your biological/emotional need to have a woman and a child is something you have to put ahead of any of societies mores or considerations. The social contract between a man and his society is a two way street, and right now the society has decided that the obligations only go one way.

RVB is not a malicious woman. If anything, she is probably BETTER than the norm. And that is EXACTLY the point.

Note the insult based on age (when she can herself be only within a year or two in age of Dalrock) as if somehow middle-age deprived people such as Newton, Shakespeare and Locke of sense or as if it achieving middle-age was some sort of moral failure; and note also the Racial abuse and against her own race! – presumably had the article been written by a Negro or Asian or Aborigine or Eskimo that would have nullified any attempted criticism – what a pity Newton Shakespeare and Locke were White for that surely nullifies their works. What level of private hell of self-loathing must this poor woman be enduring. The Tramp Stamps are by tramp-stamp standards attractive and subtly placed – almost hidden really; she is clearly not trailer trash, but why mutilate your body with the equivalent of go-faster stripes as if you are no more than an artists canvas.

Personally I am all in favour of getting on with sleeping around whilst the lawyers dither – but had previously felt that may not be quite the thing to say here.

Stringtheory
Using drugs to suppress your sex drive so as to show righteousness is madness. I like Lyn’s idea just elope. How can any father send his daughter to ride the cock carousel? An ignorant fool going along with the feminine imperative can. This is when courage of faith is tested and every body failed in this one. And some college athlete is going wear out some fresh pussy.

The link in Dalrock’s article to her group of self-portraits appears to have been recently changed to only one self-portrait.

In which she wants to tell us off while also teasing us with her flat(ish) stomach. She just can’t help herself.

It’s always funny when a girl exposes herself online (emotionally or physically) to the entire world, and then freaks out when the wrong kind of men look at what she’s showing and have the wrong reactions. A girl will put up nude selfies and post things she wouldn’t tell her confessor, fantasizing about all the hunky alphas who will be looking and lusting after her and sending nothing but compliments, then get angry and offended when it doesn’t quite work out that way.

@ greyghost
“cicero no kidding, a man of god. That is what a Christian man with game is. The pedesatlizing of females is a man thing and is churchian as hell. Do not confuse the understanding of female nature with being a pussy beggar or let churchian indoctrination tell you it is wrong.”

Well you are a shining example of a man with a solipsistic mind set. You read but did not comprehend what I wrote. Not once did I mention the word church yet you confuse what I wrote with that because like a real red pill Christian you are to afraid and prideful to face something that does not follow what you have been told a man should be. A Christ following man will never pedestal anyone. You claim that I do not understand female nature and makes me a pussy beggar. Game by its very nature make you a pussy beggar because you don’t know how to govern your relationships. It is the same thing just dressed up in a way to get what you want with a higher success rate. So you get a better effect than out right begging but the cause stays the same… that is why Bonobos continuously have to play the game to get what they want.

A Christian man only begs to Christ for forgives and to no one else for anything. A Christian man is told to follow the instructions given to him in the Bible. And it is clear you don’t know the instruction. You are so caught up in the illusions of female nature/game/Churchian dogma that you fail to see the Truth.

She really has gone way out of her depths has she not. Grasping what Feminism might be is no more limited to females than understanding criminality is limited to criminals – as if were a Lion able to talk and speak English he might complain that a Biologist was not capable of understanding Lion Biology because he was a featherless biped.

Apparently she is now a Lesbian; as there is almost certainly no such thing other than of the lip-stick variety, all that shows is that she now has so little impulse control that she cannot wait for the next man unless it is merely advertising her unavailability in an attempt to raise her obviously falling S.M.V.

Mistaking being read and laughed at for being harassed and threatened reveals her paranoid solipsism – and inability to take criticism; thus the strong empowered woman ™.

So what I don’t understand is your goal in writing this. You do know the person you’re writing about is a human being. Okay, you disagree with, well everything about who she is down to even her tattoos (you all do realize than 60 percent of all folks under the age of 35 now have at least one tattoo, right? Is it 1954 where you all live?) but she is still a human being. A human being who writes with her real name, about her real experiences. She doesn’t hide behind a fake internet moniker. Does her writing, on a website you clearly read only to disagree with, in any way decrease your amount of whatever it is you are looking for? Personal liberty? A stable nuclear family? I just don’t understand what your goal is or how you hope to reach it by what you’ve written.

A perfectly laudable goal would be to use this skank as a demo model as to why men should only pump and dumb such women. To the curb with her! I hope her daddy is proud..

“Okay, you disagree with, well everything about who she is down to even her tattoos (you all do realize than 60 percent of all folks under the age of 35 now have at least one tattoo, right?”

The tattooed are simply a subset, if a large subset, of the seriously screwed-up/low-class in our society. The seriously screwed-up have numerically dominated our society for a generation now. (You can’t even be a Bible-based, e.g., actual/non-CINO Christian on any given day you still voluntarily have one on your body.) The fact that it’s more common than being HIV+ in subSaharan Africa does not make it pointless to avoid in women than is the latter.

“This is to the Christian men who’ve written here condemning this woman, calling her all manner of hate-filled things.

3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

1) Sin, especially unrepentant sin, is fully worthy of hatred, FCW.

2) The proper response by the local enforcers of morality in that situation IMO would have been to hand Jesus a rock, and say “If you wanted to go first, Jesus, all you had to do was say so.”

Adulterous women threaten the core component of society in a way that even irregularly-employed men do not. It’s on the same level as someone who knows they’re HIV+ and still have promiscuous sex, or a homosexual child molester (think of the hopefully-fictional narrator of the Vagina Monologues as a classic example).

“Lyn87: The attitude for delaying marriage is pretty widespread. During our conversation most of the other fathers agreed that a 28 year old shouldn’t be dating someone 9 years younger when there were so many women in the church (like that very attractive redhead in her 30s) who couldn’t find men.”

The root of the problem is that most Christian leaders and almost all Christian parents no longer have the Biblical goal of their daughters having a large family. If your goal for your daughter is to NOT have a large family, and “keep house”, then there is no need for her to marry at 19 to a guy with a good, established job.

Also the pastor encouraging the 38 year old woman “not to settle” is obviously not promoting the idea she should have a lot kids to fill the church of the future. (He and she could also be ignorant/naïve of a female’s short fertility window.)

I find it interesting that F.C. Whitehead felt the need to give us all a lengthy quote from John Chapter 8. Clearly he thinks calling someone out on conduct that is sinful for the individual and destructive to the people around her is the same thing as personal condemnation.

It is not. In fact, if he had not deliberately misquoted verse 11, he would have known that Jesus himself said the exact opposite in that very passage. FCW quoted the passage through the first part of John 8:11. Here is what FCW said the final verse says, “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared.”

Here’s what it actually says: “She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” [Emphasis added.]

First of all, let us note that Jesus – while declaring her conduct to be sinful and commanding her to stop doing it – was careful to say that that was not the same as condemnation. It’s right there in verse 11. So when FCW says that calling out sin equals condemnation, he’s wrong. And he knows he’s wrong, otherwise he would not have had to cut out the rest of what Jesus said…

… It’s very telling that FCW ended his quote mid-way through what Jesus said to the adulteress: by doing so he simply pretended that Jesus did not say the exact opposite of what he wants Him to have said. Not to put too fine a point on it: FCW lied, and probably hoped nobody would realize that he left out the rest of the quote.

Churchians like FCW are fond of the first part of that verse, but when somebody points out the fact that Jesus unambiguously called her conduct sinful – and commanded her to refrain from it in the future – we are met with accusations of being “un-Christlike.” FCW’s exact words were, “I’ve never encountered anything less Christ-like on the internet.”

Really, FCW? You have never encountered anything less Christ-like than saying, “That’s a sin, stop it?” You must lead a pretty sheltered life, because I encounter lots of stuff less Christ-like than quoting scripture pretty much every time I walk out my front door or hit an “on” switch. Maybe if you didn’t take a pair of scissors to the parts of the Bible you don’t like you’d realize that your touchy-feely “churchianity” bears little resemblance to Christianity.

“What would you teach a class of teenage, Christian men to give them the correct perspective?”

See what Gunner, fee and Oscar said. They’re 100 percent correct. First, get away from Churchian churches. Don’t attend them; don’t go to them, don’t give them anything. Second, don’t listen to anything Churchians have to say about ANYTHING, least of all about sex. Third, get out Proverbs and read it. All of it. AR pointed out its descriptions of bad women who do bad things. The point is to get young men to realize that women, just like men, are capable of evil, self-serving conduct, and calculation. This is a tough message to get through to young men, since they are bombarded at every turn with “man bad, woman good”.

Four, learn the basics of male and female attraction. Male sexuality is a good thing and was designed to attach them for life to a good woman, for their enjoyment, and for procreation. I wouldn’t tell them to harness it because they are already getting that message from every quarter. Female sexuality is also a good thing when properly controlled; but what they are seeing now is uncontrolled, feral female sexuality, which is a tremendously destructive force.

Fifth, I’d instruct men on the sociosexual theorists out there. There are those who put as nice a face on this as possible; stating that there are really only a small percentage of women who truly are sluts. Serial monogamists aren’t sluts; they are just dating and “gaining life experience”. Well, this is just how it is now, with women earning their own money and being strongindependent. They don’t need providers, so men will have to adjust. I’d tell them that such advocates don’t have men’s interests at heart. I’d make sure to tell them that for women, there’s really no smart way to hook up.

Then there are those who tell men they must accept any kind of woman who comes along, including the high N reformed slut; the baby mama and the divorced mom. I’d make sure to tell the truth about such women. The reformed slut can’t or won’t bond. The baby mama is too entangled with priorities that will take precedence over a husband other than the baby’s father. The divorced mom comes with a department store full of baggage. None are good candidates for marriage.

“Would you encourage the young men to marry young?”

Gunner had the right answer here. A man’s default position must be “no” to marriage. I would encourage them to avoid marriage unless the following conditions are met: (1) he burns with passion for her; (2) she burns with passion for him; (3) she is submissive to him, demonstrated through a course of conduct over sufficient time such that he is satisfied this is her true personality and not an act or playing false; (4) she is head over heels in love with him; and (5) he wants children of his own and with this woman. All five conditions must be met in the same woman. Let her make the case for marriage. Let her qualify herself for wife status. He need not convince her to marry him. He need not qualify to her as husband material.

Men would be taught that a woman’s default position toward marriage should be “yes”. She should be actively seeking marriage right out of the gate. And “dating around” and partying and having sex with the most attractive men she can find is not “actively seeking marriage”. Saying “I want to get married someday” is NOT “actively seeking marriage”. Passively hanging back and waiting for it to “just happen” is NOT “actively seeking marriage”. Returning to church and saying a prayer and taunting men with your decolletage is NOT “actively seeking marriage”. Rejecting men left and right in the hopes that the alphaest alpha at church will pay you some attention is NOT “actively seeking marriage”.

For real and for serious, the fuck business is it of any of yours when or whom someone *you don’t know* dates? For that matter, the fuck business is it of yours when or whom *anyone dates*? Seriously. Y’all need to find some other shit to occupy your time.

This call for privacy is bizarre. She wrote under her own name about the men she had sex with while still married in the tabloid that she works for. The Frisky’s tagline is:

The point is to get young men to realize that women, just like men, are capable of evil, self-serving conduct, and calculation.

In addition, they need to understand that women tend to different types of evil than men; the sins of Eve are not the same as the sins of Adam, and they affect men and women differently. So a man has to be on guard against behaviors that he might not automatically expect because he would never consider them himself — for instance, the tendency to bail out of promises and plans without guilt when one’s mood no longer supports them. If he understands those differences and what evil behaviors are commonly female, he’ll be much less surprised and affected by the behavior of women he meets.

I won’t pretend to know that this woman is somehow “better than the norm” by reading her stuff. She may be a great gal. She may not. She may fall, like most of us, somewhere in between.

What I do know is that when alerted to Dalrock’s piece she: (1) Tried to dismiss the piece because it was written by “a middle aged white man”; (2) solicited her ‘followers’ (LOLZ) to tear him (and us) apart.; and when that didn’t work (3) Lied about being threatened in an attempt to shut all discourse down.

Anyone who believes that feminists are ‘powerful’ and/or intelligent and/or competent should find her actions pathetic and embarrassing.

Anyone who believes in the importance of the free exchange of ideas should find her actions disgusting.

Anyone who believes in telling the truth should find her eagerness to lie very troubling.

My personal view after reading some of her stuff is that she likely falls into the useful idiot category. I didn’t see a single original thought in anything I read. Most was sophomoric regurgitation of talking points from Sociology/Women’s Study classes she has taken.

I also think she is likely a very emotionally fragile person and should be left alone to live her life as she sees fit.

F. C. Whitehead, your intellectual dishonesty betrays you. But if you had included the complete verse, you couldn’t make your point. The rest is “go, and sin no more”. Funny how that’s exactly what is being discussed here, the hows of that command. I sincerely hope you can understand that it is a Christian duty to live rightly so as to follow that command.

Cail CorishevIt’s always funny when a girl exposes herself online (emotionally or physically) to the entire world, and then freaks out when the wrong kind of men look at what she’s showing and have the wrong reactions.

It’s the online version of the “Male Gaze” freakout. I recall in the 1990’s when the newsgroups soc.men and soc.women were not yet overrun by spammers some nearly perpetual threads that centered around “the beach”. Long story short, young women would stamp their virtual foot because while they dressed in micro T-back beachwear only for their boyfriends, “creeps” insisted on staring at them. How dare those men at a public beach look at them, with that disgusting Male Gaze.

In the West men are apparently supposed to have a “mental burkha” that keeps them from seeing nearly naked women parading around in public, even right in front of them at the beach.

Online, men are supposed to have a different “mental burkha” that keeps them from noticing women behaving badly, in an antisocial manner, and bragging about it…

Interesting. The folks complaining about Dalrock’s OP about Ms. Brink fall into four categories:

Kelli Dunham: There’s no point to this post. What are you trying to accomplish?

Joseph: You are a bunch of BILWCGL (bitter insecure losers who can’t get laid)!

Y’all Seriously: She’s entitled to her privacy (even though she posts extremely intimate details of her sex life on public blogs under her real name and writes extensively about said sex life literally everywhere).

Cail CorishevIn addition, they need to understand that women tend to different types of evil than men; the sins of Eve are not the same as the sins of Adam, and they affect men and women differently. So a man has to be on guard against behaviors that he might not automatically expect because he would never consider them himself —

Fundamentally, young men need strong education on the nature of women, centered on the scientifically proven fact that men and women are not the same. Women are not merely men who can bear children. A young man who looks upon a woman as like him, except with different plumbing, will be very surprised when she behaves badly in a way he would never do, as CC outlines above. He needs to understand what a fitness test is, what it means, and how to handle it. He needs to understand just how powerfully women are affected by sex, too, and respect that part of reality.

“I’ll agree with that. I suspect that you are 30 years of age or younger, because of this:

‘So, yes, as far as what matters, it’s in there.’

So in your opinion, there was no need for Solomon to also write Ecclesiastes, and there’s nothing in there for married men and women to learn from?”

My point was not that the Book of Proverbs is the sum of all wisdom. Obviously not, otherwise we wouldn’t need the rest of the Bible.

My point was that the Book of Proverbs explains how a man should behave if he wants to attract a Proverbs 31 woman, and how a woman should behave if she wants to attract a Proverbs 1-30 man. There’s a lot more to it than that, of course, but that was the subject to which I responded.

Ecclesiastes and Proverbs are kind of opposites of each other. Proverbs explains how we should behave, while Ecclesiastes explains how we should not behave, and the consequences thereof. Ecclesiastes is about the futility (“vanity”) of life lived as if there is no God (“under the sun”), while Proverbs explains how to live a life that honors God.

And no, I’m not under 30. I’m 38, married for 10 years and have kids in their teens. The kids and I are currently reading through the Bible chronologically, except that we read a chapter of Proverbs every day. Obviously, we’re going to read the entire Bible, including Ecclesiastes, but Proverbs is what I want to drill into them, because if they live a life that honors God, they won’t need to worry about the consequences of living life “under the sun”.

HawkandRock
That is what the herd mentality looks like. It is about status (social0 in the circles she wants to be in. That is why the church accommodating feminism (see F.C. Whitehead) instead of following faith in the word when challenged is so destructive to the church and Christianity in the eyes of many people.

I am working on a post that might be of some help. Unfortunately it won’t be done for a while. In the meantime I will post some snippets from it as well as some advice along the lines of what others have already mentioned.

1. Genesis 29: the story of Jacob’s marriage to Leah (the plain one) then to Rachel (the hot one). It’s a story of what a guy will do for a hot girl. It’s also a story of how a man can be deceived into a relationship with an unattractive girl he doesn’t want.

2. Genesis 39: The story of Potiphar’s wife. Good story of adulterous women, and what even a high status, rich, married woman is capable of when she wants sex with a hot young stud. Basically it’s “wealthy idle middle aged woman attempts to cheat with the poolboy”.

3. Judges 16: Samson and Delilah. Hot woman causes downfall of otherwise good man by defrauding him and nagging him to death. It’s usually told as the story of a weak man giving in to a cute girl for some nookie. But in reality when you read it carefully, it’s the story of an alpha cad/player who played her like a violin. Then Delilah laid out her true nature as a conniving whore who played Samson pretty much the only way she could. She nagged him and played on his good nature – she accused him of using her, mocking her, and not loving her (“how can you say you love me, Samson, when you have not shown me your whole heart?”). Samson gave in to Delilah and told her the truth of his strength mainly to get her to shut up and leave him alone. Then, when he tells her the truth, tells her everything, shows her his whole heart, that’s when he loses.

Yet she multiplied her harlotry
In calling to remembrance the days of her youth,
When she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt.
For she lusted for her paramours,
Whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys,
And whose issue is like the issue of horses.
Thus you called to remembrance the lewdness of your youth,
When the Egyptians pressed your bosom
Because of your youthful breasts.

Translation: She pined away for her youth, when she was a young college student and working girl. She loved it because she got to have sex with lots of hot men with huge cocks and who ejaculated like horses. She remembered getting to slut around with hot men who manhandled her because she was a hot girl.

I know that many here are Protestant, so you may not have ever read the Book of Sirach. I would suggest that you remedy this error, as it is, in my opinion, a wisdom book on par with Proverbs. Here are some snippets which you might find illuminating:

Do not be jealous of the wife of your bosom,
and do not teach her an evil lesson to your own hurt.
2 Do not give yourself to a woman
so that she gains mastery over your strength.
3 Do not go to meet a loose woman,
lest you fall into her snares.
…
8 Turn away your eyes from a shapely woman,
and do not look intently at beauty belonging to another;
many have been misled by a woman’s beauty,
and by it passion is kindled like a fire.

(Sirach 9:1-3,8)

and then this-

16 I would rather live with a lion and a dragon
than live with an evil woman.
17 A woman’s wickedness changes her appearance,
and darkens her face like that of a bear.
18 Her husband sits[h] among the neighbors,
and he cannot help sighing[i] bitterly.
19 Any iniquity is small compared to a woman’s iniquity;
may a sinner’s lot befall her!

(Sirach 25:16-19)

There are a lot more warnings in there. Plus advice on traits to look for.

I tend to think that most of the behavioral problems I laugh at (including many of the more dramatic people in the manosphere) are the end result of a life lacking parental guidance.

Boxer, you dolt, you meant paternal rather than “parental”.

Rob Fedders comes to mind as the most notable example….

Was Rob raised by a single mom? That’s so interesting, and it’d explain so much about him.

Something for you sociologists to write about, perhaps: Fatherlessness and its tendency to create kooks, who live most of their lives online, posting half-nude selfies and bizarre moralizing articles to The Frisky, explaining how they’re not actually sluts, even though they behave like it in every other way.

If she’d be willing to listen and take correction, she’d probably have her problems solved by the collective wisdom here. Of course, her self-worth is tied into preserving her fragile world-view, so that’ll never happen.

If she’d be willing to listen and take correction, she’d probably have her problems solved by the collective wisdom here.

What? You want her to clean herself up and start behaving with dignity? That would entail, like, hard work and introspection! We can’t expect a feminist to do that! Why work on your own self-improvement? It’s so much easier to squawk about how “persecuted” she is.

Not only that she has appealed for assistance to someone called Daylight Atheism who if his Tweets are anything to go by is the very parody of a self-loathing pussy-worshipping Mangina the sort of person who makes even Futrelle or Scalzi look almost reasonable. Stand by to be savaged by a dead-sheep.

Grasping what Feminism might be is no more limited to females than understanding criminality is limited to criminals – as if were a Lion able to talk and speak English he might complain that a Biologist was not capable of understanding Lion Biology because he was a featherless biped.

–Genesis 3: The Fall. Moral of the story: Don’t take a woman’s advice about anything, especially when God has clearly told you to do the exact opposite. God meted out punishment to Adam in part “because [he] hearkened unto the voice of [his] wife”.

–The Ezekiel 23 story of Oholah and Oholibah is an allegory, but is plainly a description of the alpha widow phenomenon.

–Hosea 1, 3: The prophet Hosea marries a promiscuous woman. She bears Hosea two kids, then leaves him and cheats on him. Hosea has to “buy her back” to get her to come home, which she does. He does all this because God tells him to do it. The story is still a good, and accurate, illustration of the risks and consequences of marriage to a slut.

cicero
I hope you are seeing this. Deti is posting up what Christian man game looks like. He is straight up speaking the truth with out fear of some cunt liking him. Where would this RVB at with a man like that in her life at any time. Knowing the truth doesn’t make you a player.

@Greyghost, “Imag[in]e chapters and verses in the bible forbidden to be read due to the feminine imperative in church.”

Like Leviticus 19:28? “28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.” and 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, “6 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”

Here’s the other thing about Kelli’s Dunham’s claim that 60% of people under 35 have tattoo’s. It’s a grossly exaggerated claim. I couldn’t find the data Dunham claimed, so all I could find was a Pew poll from 2010 in which 38% 18- 29(now in 2014 33/34 years of age) had tattoo’s and a Fox News poll that found 34% under 30 had a tattoo. A far cry from the 60% claimed.

The other problem I have with “her” claim is that just because a significant people are getting tattoo’s doesn’t make it right or that we as Christians shouldn’t speak the truth that it is wrong. The other problem with Dunham’s argumentation is that just because America and the West are debasing themselves doesn’t mean that the rest of the world is. I know this isn’t a argument germane to Dalrock’s blog, but the rest of the world is not like the US and Europe. As someone who does business in Asia, the toleration for things like tattoo’s is very low. I could never have accomplished what I have in my own business dealings with people in Asia if I had a full sleeve of tats because most of the 4 billion people living in Asia view tattoo’s negatively. They vast majority of Asians(& much of the non-Western world) view them as having connotations with criminals, prostitutes, and other lowlifes.

This is what really worries me about the next generation of Americans. That as they debase themselves more and more with things like Sex Positivism, drugs, Feminism/LGBT ideology, tattoo’s, vulgarity, etc. they are do so at a time when America is in economic, political, and social decline and much of the world, especially Asia is in economic and political ascendancy. America’s days of ordering the rest of the world are coming to an end and the people who will be giving orders to Americans aren’t going to be quite so tolerant of things and behavior they view as aberrant. Including tattoo’s.

A whoremonger is no more and no less than a pimp, i.e it’s for pecuniary gain, ceteris paribus.

There is an old and useful Scots term which fits the bill, that I personally have only heard used down Leith Docks (3rd quarter of the last century, for the pedants, and only by cranky older wifies).
That is, “hoor-maister” (lit. “whoremaster”). Seems to refer to freespending matelots and younger unmarried or otherwise engaged tradesmen who can pull more junior gash net of the expenditure of much more than a sharky smile and the promise of quarter-gills.
They literally “master” the “hoors” (the entire female contingent of aforementioned port city) into giving it up almost pro bono, and the younger they are the more likely (male or female).

Much to the disgruntlement of the overly-solid yet expectant matrons of the burgh.

“Was reading an article about 3 weeks ago about teenage guys…ages 15 to 19….that have ED?….WTF?”Mark, mate. Top tip. Don’t drink the water. Even bottled.
I certainly don’t … [koff koff]
Collect rainwater off of the roof, or go up the hill to get it.
Even the kippers caught off Craster have eleventeen milky tits and a babby in a stroller now (nevermind the three eyes on one side of the head, and the feathers and frog-feet).

If you got kids, better to feed them beer ( Pilsen of course) or wine (like the French. A thin southern Merlot or Italian, or even fizzy, if not available. Saumur (sweeter), Prosecco/Cava/Champers etc.). Not German whites, very fattening.

[Just for once I am not pissing about; DO NOT drink the shit (well, actually, worse than shit, from which I have recovered many’s the time, oh how we larrfed) that comes outta the rising main. Even as icecubes.
Think of it as training, for yer ‘olidays and that.
No Potare/non es potabile/whatever the foreign is for boak-watter].

I know this isn’t a argument germane to Dalrock’s blog, but the rest of the world is not like the US and Europe. As someone who does business in Asia, the toleration for things like tattoo’s is very low. I could never have accomplished what I have in my own business dealings with people in Asia if I had a full sleeve of tats because most of the 4 billion people living in Asia view tattoo’s negatively. They vast majority of Asians(& much of the non-Western world) view them as having connotations with criminals, prostitutes, and other lowlifes.

Tell your daughters (as I have told mine) that sometimes the best things you can do to signal to the world that you are a cut above the rest, is to NOT do something. Ladies, do not cut your hair, do not go into debt, and never get a tattoo.

Hardly. Christ Himself said, “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.” It’s terrible that Godly men are being forced to such extremes but those extremes themselves aren’t sins. Certainly not in this age.

“You can’t really channel your libido in modern America, unless you want to go live in the woods as a hermit…”

This is how I handled being incel; walling myself off from society so I could pretend women didn’t exist. Very lonely thing to do but some good came of it. I discovered the outdoors, learned to enjoy simple pleasures like carpentry and basically Enjoyed the Decline long before I’d heard of Captain Capitalism. When I look at how other men turned out–trapped in Marriage 2.0, X-Box addicts, jaded pickup artists, debt slaves– I think I came out okay as a latter-day monk. That son probably will, too. He’s trying to obey God the best he can with the tools he has. It sucks to suffer like that but God will respect it.

@JDG
“Some how I missed this earlier. IMO they are all sluts. If you are unmarried, have n > 1 on your score card and are willing to have n > 2, you are a slut. If you are married and decide to move on to “greener” pastures, you are an adulteress and a slut.”

The issue is the surrounding culture of unrestrained promiscuity and downright shaming of women who do retain their virtue. So even *good* women have an N count of 1 or 2. In my circles, it tends to be the ex-fiance or the 30 year old man who decided a 14 year old was good to play around with. Or say, an employer/family member with great financial power over you.

So I would consider coercive relationships as not adding to the N count in the same way as a random partner. Also, many women react to sexual abuse and molestation by seeking out truly stupid and dangerous sexual situations as a way to punish themselves (I know I did to a certain extent… not N count upping but immoral all the same). Basically, N count is great for general judgments, but falls down when there is significant sexual trauma.

@tickletik Good understanding of the female psyche. See above as well. If Miss Ima publish this stupid stuff does have issues of the type above, it puts an entirely different spin on things.

Basically, N count is great for general judgments, but falls down when there is significant sexual trauma.

Not to be unsympathetic, but that’s a rather lame copout. I scoff at anyone using these “mistakes were made” ethical excuses — which is merely a form of hamster-fueled rationalization, when one’s behavior is so lousy that it can’t be glossed over any longer.

I’ve done plenty of stupid things, but my life is the result of my choices, and I try to own up to them (for better and for worse). I’m not trying to be rude here, just encouraging you to lead what they used to call an examined life.

@Boxer
A person who has been raped or molested frequently reacts by punishing themselves through drugs, alcohol, sexual misbehavior etc. As part of the trauma. I’m merely talking about well known psychology. I have never personally engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage that were not violently forced.

“Mistakes were made” requires that the person is capable of controlling or understanding their actions. Rather the point is that a damaged psyche is unable to make proper choices because it is *incapable* of thinking clearly, so N counts in this context are not very useful. *This is not a common situation*

The fact is, your heroine wrote a ridiculous article in the public sphere. This blog featured a balanced and salient rebuttal. That you’d compare this to a “lynch mob” (in its historical context) is not only ridiculously dishonest, it also displays your own sickening white privilege.

Grow up, sweetie. Accept the fact that sometimes, people will disagree with you, and if you want to play this game credibly, write a coherent, topical response.

Basically, N count is great for general judgments, but falls down when there is significant sexual trauma.

That depends on whether you’re trying to determine guilt or calculate suitability for marriage. I think we’d all agree that a woman who was raped by five men does not bear the same guilt as a woman who chose to have fornicate with five men. But that doesn’t mean the first woman is just as suitable for marriage as if she’d never been touched by those men. She may have serious mental baggage — through no fault of her own — that makes her completely unable to be a good wife. In general, a woman with a higher N, whatever the reason for it, is a bigger risk.

Of course, no one is claiming that’s an absolute rule, or that every woman with a particular N is equally suitable/unsuitable for marriage. There are always outliers, and there may be a prostitute with N=10,000 who is more suitable than an N=2 alpha widow. There will be some virgins who make terrible wives. Of course once you’re dealing with an individual, you have to look at that person’s pros and cons and go much deeper than N. It’s just a good filter to start with — low N is usually better than high, and N=0 is usually best of all — so it’s something that women should take seriously and not shrug off as a relic of the past.

“Mistakes were made” requires that the person is capable of controlling or understanding their actions. Rather the point is that a damaged psyche is unable to make proper choices because it is *incapable* of thinking clearly, so N counts in this context are not very useful. *This is not a common situation*

I’m probably more in sympathy than you think. To be clear, I was not ever raped, but I did go through my parents’ divorce (which was international – and traumatic). When I was in my early teens, I was rather pissed off at everyone involved, and even people who were not involved. I had plenty of episodes of rage-fueled misbehavior, large and small. Eventually, I realized that “doing exactly the opposite of what would make mom happy” means that your mother is still calling the plays in your life, in a perverted sort of way.

That realization is key, I think, in starting to live an authentic existence. In hindsight, I am sorry for many things. I don’t say “O, well, that wasn’t my fault because I had shitty parents”. It actually was my fault, regardless of my own internal motivations. We all have the ability to choose to behave well or poorly, and accepting responsibility is actually the first step toward liberating the ego from the trauma of childhood.

(Another thing I realized is that *everyone* had a shitty childhood, in their own way. All parents suck ass. Childhood is difficult, and thinking that yours was more difficult than the next person’s is a form of vanity that just doesn’t hold up.)

Cail covered what I was going to say. N might not always work out great for examining moral culpability, but it is a good, easy means of figuring out a woman’s marriageability. Again, not always accurate, but good as a filter.

@Cail Corishev
Completely agree as per suitability for marriage, traumatized people make crap decisions. It was more of a way of addressing the women with N counts of more than 1 are whores and sluts. (JDG) Generally? Yes. But there are differences.
@Boxer
I think the self realization is the key, especially realizing what “coping strategies” actually keep you completely messed up. Sin is always sin, but the reasons behind it are just as important as the sin itself to understanding how to change (the mortal venial catholic distinction) I also agree about the childhood thing. You were fed clothed and educated? Congrats, yours was fantastic compared to most people in the world.

Shell
everything said here I would say to my daughter. Do you really think your buddy is happy with where she is at. You have done nothing for that woman. She is still somewhat attractive and for getting back on the carousel or reflection It is her choice. All anybody here was doing was talking about her behavior. Nothing said here no matter how emotionally traumatizing was actually bad for her as a human being. nothing said here would harm that woman. You are wrong and not a friend of hers at all.

Isa, the men here sometimes engage in hyperbole or generalizations. It’s best to accept that and not expect disclaimers and exceptions with each one.

I know a woman just like you describe. She endured horrific sexual abuse from multiple family members as a child, and then proceeded to punish herself with various men for years. I’ve watched her try to break out of that box several times now. She gets counseling, maybe some medication, makes some breakthroughs, starts thinking she’s put her past behind her, starts seeing someone, thinks she’s started a new life — and then sabotages it and goes back to square one. Rinse and repeat. It’s heartbreaking, because she’s full of compassion for others, a lovely person in every way, but she’ll probably never be able to marry. Her N might as well be a million, where suitability for marriage is concerned.

The bottom line is that someone who repeatedly makes bad choices sexually — regardless of the reason — is a bad risk for marriage. Maybe the girl I described is not at fault for turning herself into the town bike after what her family did to her. But it still counts. If she’d been able, somehow, to stay chaste and not give in to that destiny, that would have been a sign that she’d been able to deal with it better. In that case, she might be able to handle marriage — and whaddya know, her N would be lower.

@Cail Corishev
Disclaimers are a bit stupid to expect on the internet! Although I do wonder if some of the men have ever actually met women… Neither of the sexes can really understand how the other thinks at the end of the day, too many brain structure differences. It’s like peering though leaded glass, shapes and figures clear and distorted.

so N counts in this context are not very useful. *This is not a common situation*

Any kind of sex before life long commitment will effect a woman’s relationship with her husband, and each partner will increase her baggage and the likely hood of divorce.

I would agree that a woman who was physically forced truly against her will is not a slut, however, the event (though it’s not her fault) most likely impact her ability to function in a healthy marriage, and will probably require extra work to overcome.

If, however, she then embarks on an adventure on the carousal, then I’m sorry, she has become a slut. Yes it was brought on by external circumstances combined with internal frailty. Nevertheless, tragic as it is, she has become a slut just like the alcoholic who started drinking because of his cheating wife.

If she stops fornicating and stays stopped, then she stops being a slut. Just like the druggy who stops using drugs stops being a drug addict.

Sometimes ignorance is bliss, I am glad I did marry.(you should meet my kids) In that it provided the stress and pressure to become red pill. I like not living in ignorance. But I will say sticking it out through the tough times does bring a reflective joy I am so at ease with things right now simply by not living a lie. Blue pill is hard living

I was already moving into ‘red pill’ territory by the time I decided to marry. Even though I new nothing of the manosphere, I was very serious about biblical instructions and warnings.

I would most likely have married my wife even knowing what I know now, because she met the criteria and for the most part would have met it even after my having been further exposed to ‘red pill’ philosophy. More importantly, there was a lot of answered prayer that impacted our decision.

I do understand the way my wife thinks, and most women I know as well. Women really aren’t that complicated if you remember a few simple principles. It really isn’t a mystery.

I do understand the way my wife thinks, and most women I know as well. Women really aren’t that complicated if you remember a few simple principles. It really isn’t a mystery.

This is the magic of the red pill. The bible is clear faith is easier and inner peace and under standing will allow women to be women. Maybe a red pill greyghost would still skank hoe future proper married lady Mrs. greyghost

…consider socializing with the communities that still have just 5% divorce rates, which are immigrant communities from non-Western countries. They might be surprised to see that they have more in common with them than the present day Churchian Americans.

In regards to social and family values this absolutely is the case for us, only I would add that the majority of our church congregation would also be in that subset with common values.

But no more than 30% of men (perhaps even less) can honestly say they are happy, and that still doesn’t make them immune to the rudest of surprises some years hence.

I wouldn’t say I am happy, but content. I think this is better than happiness and has more to do with my relationship with Jesus than anything else.

The man really does have to keep an eye on who his wife’s friends are, whether her friends are divorcing, and what media she is consuming.

IMO this and more is really par for the course if you are a married Christian man, even more so if you are a married Christian man living in the USA.

Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

1 Tim 3:4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?

Whether a man can perfectly understand a woman (and vice-versa) is irrelevant to the decision of whether to marry or not. God designed man with both a physical and mental need for a wife, and he designed woman to meet those needs. (If woman were the same as man, physically or mentally, the needs would not be met.) A person who decides that marriage is ill-advised because men and women are so different (or any other complicating factor), is a person who believes they are wiser than their creator. In other words, a fool.

Also, God designed marriage as a symbolic scale-model of our relationship with Christ (each Christian is described as “the bride of Christ”). Men are told to love their wives just as Christ loved humanity (sacrificially). Wives are told to obey their husbands just as we obey God (no arguments, just do it). If you think marriage is a bad idea because X, just imagine Jesus thinking, “Sacrificing my life for these stupid, pigheaded, unrepentant humans is a bad idea.”

Obviously it is a challenge (understatement alert!) to find a good woman. But all men were designed to need a wife, just as we were designed to need God. To choose to avoid relationships with either is to choose a level of misery that even a lousy marriage can’t approach.

To choose to avoid relationships with either [women or God] is to choose a level of misery that even a lousy marriage can’t approach.

While you’re absolutely right about avoiding a relationship with God being a terrible idea, I can’t agree with you that remaining permanently single is “a level of misery that even a lousy marriage can’t approach” — and neither does the book of Proverbs. “Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.” (Prov. 21:9 and 25:24 — same proverb is repeated twice). And “A quarrelsome wife is like the dripping of a leaky roof in a rainstorm; restraining her is like restraining the wind or grasping oil with the hand.” (Prov. 27:15-16).

And a man I know, who was married very young as a non-Christian, then had his wife divorce him after he became a believer, told me once that there was something far worse than being single, and that was being trapped in a bad marriage. I prefer to listen to his experience, backed up by the Bible, than theory. Yes, most (not all — Matthew 19:12) men are designed for a relationship with a wife (Genesis 2:18). But it would be a HUGE mistake to enter into a lousy marriage just to be married, and it does NO favors to young men to tell them to do so. Instead, we should be telling them to avoid women who would make lousy wives as if their life depended on it.

And a man I know, who was married very young as a non-Christian, then had his wife divorce him after he became a believer,

I knew a woman who did this too. I remember praying with her and others some years ago for the salvation of her husband. Then came the good news that he had accepted Jesus and became a Christian. Then after all those years trying to win an unbeliever husband over to Christ, she frivorced him after his conversion a couple of years later.

Words fail me.

Concerning marriage I recommend 1 Cor 7 the whole chapter.

Her is an excerpt: 7:27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.

@Luke If you think that in John 8:1-11 that Christ should have just ‘admitted’ he wanted to throw the first stone at the adulterous woman then you think you know better than Christ and are not a Christian. Every piece of Scripture is revealed to us the way it is for a reason, and so we have to ask why it is that Christ very clearly decided not to throw stones and what this means for our behavior.

@Lyn87 Thanks for your response to my post. I’d like to respectfully say that I’m not a Churchian and that I hope you believe me when I say that it was an honest mistake me leaving off the end of the passage in my previous post. I thought I’d copied and pasted the whole thing (I’m not very good at using my tablet, which is new device for me). I truly meant to include the final sentence which as you very correctly say is where the meaning of the passage lies.

One of the ways I try to live my faith, instead of just profess it, is to read Scripture and apply it in the most direct way to my actions in life, even when it’s hard, even when I’m angry (nothing special about, it’s a joyous struggle for any Christian). I might have spoken too harshly when I said that this was the least Christ-like page I’d been to on the internet. But it seemed to me that the words and actions on this page contradict a very very direct message about right behavior that God has given us in John 8:1-11, and in a really similar situation too, which is why I quoted the passage. This page is like the temple court, and Dalrock has brought in an ‘adulterous woman’. It seems to me that if we look at this story, Christ isn’t telling us not to judge, not for a second, but instead is telling us *how* to judge, and in what spirit to judge. And when we as commenters gather here and throw around words like ‘slut’ and ‘whore’, and talk about pictures of this woman’s body online, and insult her personally, we’re throwing the 2014 version of stones. We’re throwing around the stones we have, the stones we can use in our society. But in the story in John, Christ is the only person there entitled to throw stones, because He’s the only one there without sin. And He makes a point of *not* throwing them, in an act of grace, and spares the woman, and tells her to ‘sin no more’. And this story is recorded in Scripture, so it’s there as an example and as a model for us to emulate in our daily lives. So, on this page, I think the challenge for us is to apply this very direct lesson, and to figure out, in the modern version of the ‘temple court’, how we tell people to ‘sin no more’ but how to tell them with grace and love, and without the throwing of stones.

Otherwise we’re hypocrites, loudly shouting about other people’s sins, when we’re full of sin ourselves. Otherwise we’re just blind to the planks in our own eyes.

If this woman isn’t a believer, why would she behave differently to how she behaves? Why wouldn’t she try to figure out how to act in the best way she knew? And by calling her ugly names, and getting personal, and focussing on the sinner rather than the sin, we’re doing nothing to draw her closer to God and to belief and to different behavior. Calling her a ‘slut’, as well as being against Scripture, also just gives her leave to belittle our ideas.

If Jesus had called this woman a whore, we’d have grounds to talk to sinners that way. But Jesus made a point of eating and drinking with sinners. He didn’t spit the word ‘traitor’ into the face of Judas; instead He washed his feet. Christ taught us to love our enemies. And He should be our model for everything.

So here are a few ideas about how we can say ‘sin no more’ with love rather than hate. For a start, we can focus on the sin, just the way Christ does. Rather than use the stone-word ‘slut’, we could say ‘this person is in sexual sin’. We can talk with love about why these ideas disagree with the way God wants us to live, and focus specifically on the purity and love of the way God wants us to live, rather than on how people are dressing, or on their tattoos (Christ never told us to care about these worldly things). Instead of calling this woman a slut and attaching and condemning her with ‘stones’, we can use it as an opportunity to draw attention to the things that are better about godly marriage. The venom in these comments gives people an excuse to turn away from God, because they see this behavior in God’s people and mistake that for God. But God is love; even His anger is loving, not venomous.

Otherwise we’re living the Old Covenant, not the New. And Christ is the New.

And for other commenters who say that they would just ‘pump and dump’ this woman because she is a slut, or only ‘hit it on the way home from the night shift’, then you’re in just as much sin as she is. If her having sex with you is a sin, which it is, then you having sex with her is a sin. If you’re condemning her for that sin, then you have to condemn yourselves too.

I hope that makes it clearer what I meant wen I posted the passage. There might have been many other replies, or none, by now, but I went offline and reflected and prayed before I posted and I hope these comments are accepted in the spirit of communion in which they were meant.

You probably understood this, but for the record, the woman I was talking about was not a believer. Her husband became a Christian and started making changes in his life, going to church, and wanting her to do the same. She wanted no part of this, decided she didn’t want to be married to him anymore if he was going to be religious like this, and divorced him. Classic 1 Corinthians 7:15 situation.

The woman you’re referring to, who was a Christian and divorced her husband after he finally believed… yeah, words (polite ones, at least) fail me too. Except to wonder who the hell* she was listening to for advice that she decided to do that. Because it certainly wasn’t Biblical teaching she was listening to at that point.

* I initially wrote “who the heck”, then realized that I literally meant “hell”.

Re: the comments about “pumping and dumping” this woman, realize that not all the people who comment at Dalrock’s blog are Christians. And while I’m not aware of the spiritual status of everyone who comments here, the ones making those particular comments are almost certainly not Christians and are not trying to follow God’s commands regarding sexual behavior.

As for the harshness of words like “slut”, there are times when the gentle approach you advocate is called for, and there are times when a harsher approach is needed. Jesus was gentle with the adulterous woman (if that passage is truly in the original Gospels and not a later addition, though its lack in the earliest manuscripts is good reason to be hesitant about applying it) and with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 (which passage is most definitely in the original texts). But he was also immensely harsh with the Pharisees, the moneychangers at the temple, etc., both in words (“whitewashed tombs”, if you understand the Jewish culture at the time, was a worse insult than “slut” is today) and in deeds (overturning tables, threatening them with a whip — or maybe actually hitting them with it; the John 2 passage could support either reading). Discernment is needed to know when to be gentle but firm, and when to be harsh and unyielding. The difference in how Jesus treated people appears to have been based on whether they were going to be repentant or not. The adulterous woman, and the Samaritan woman, knew they were doing wrong and were ashamed of themselves at some level, and were willing to listen to the call for repentance, hence the gentle approach. The Pharisees and the moneychangers were not, hence the harsh approach.

Why would one be harsh at all? Because of what motivates women. A large part of what motivates women to choose one behavior over another is the question “What will others think of me?” If women like Mrs. Brink (yes, I called her Mrs. on purpose), who are clearly not interested in repenting of her behavior, are called sluts and other nasty names, it will discourage other women from imitating her.

Your approach would be the correct approach to take if Mrs. Brink showed any signs of being aware of doing wrong, or willing to repent. And it’s important to err on the side of gentleness if there’s doubt, because it would be terrible to drive someone away from repentance by wrongly choosing a harsh approach. (And I’ve seen Dalrock use gentleness in other situations, by the way.) But in this particular case, gentle words of reproof would be wasted on her, and so the only way to deal with her sin is to hold her up to others as an example. “Young women, don’t act like this, or you will be rightfully shamed.”

Having had some fun at the expense of Mrs Brink and notwithstanding my view that her only problem is tardy lawyers, I have – to ensure I was on the same page as the other haters at Dalrock – reread the OP.

I think we have missed what Mrs Brink is saying: Mrs Brink does not say that she has made any effort to separate from Mr Brink merely that she started to date again when she told her husband that she wanted a divorce – much as you might tell him you want a new car. Notice also that her justification for dating is that in her view her marriage – no hint that they are living apart – does not qualify as a relationship; I am guessing therefore that when her new men decline to date her further this is because she reveals that she is unable to take them home as she is still living with Mr Brink. If that is wrong then Mrs Brink only has herself to blame for sloppy-writing: she is a professional writer and thus she does not get the benefit of the doubt as to intended meaning. Mrs Brink is cuckolding her husband and surely with his knowledge thereof. Those new men may thus justifiably want to avoid one angry man.

I would also like to say something about the term slut. My ad hoc definition of slut would be ‘a sexually promiscuous woman’. I would also like to distinguish that term from Prostitute as that is something else; without the payment their N = 0.

Women are always keen to protest a low N; in a world of late marriage this conflicts with the need to show that they are not ‘on the shelf’ and that, indeed ‘they are and have been highly desirable’. A decade or two single – whilst waiting for Mr Right and which their career and degrees is preparing them for – needs some explanation. That they have slept with Brad is proof (to other women) that they are desirable. Revealing that they slept with Brad is a risky strategy as it might bring forth the accusation of ‘slut’ but if Brad is so desirable then notwithstanding the lack of a ring sleeping with Brad implies not merely desirability but also that they might do as well again with Leo. As most men marry there is no reason why she might not marry – if not Brad (who she explains had a small penis and is not very good in bed) or Leo, then surely George (Soros or Clooney it matters little which) who will see her qualities and wife her up. Of course she can also allege that she is the victim of Rape which is saying in terms that she is so desirable that someone – anyone – would risk gaol to possess her sexually. That she did not report the matter to the police and cannot name the fiend does not detract from this proof of her desirability. Men of course might take a different view but it is women she is keen to impress. A man seeing her Rape as both false and thus proof of slutdom matters little, for as she has not and would never sleep with him this merely proves that he is a jealous loser.

That she slept with Brad enables her to boast to Susie (who keeps complaining about her weight, her imminent date with the wall, and her inability to find love and because all the men she meets are creepy losers) that she is on a higher SMV and thus MMV than her new BFF Susie. She can be ‘big-sisterly’ to Susie when Susie once again phones at 1 a.m. to tearfully seek a shoulder to cry on. In the game of love however it does not matter what other women think but what men think. The Frisky is written for women; Mrs Brink is horrified that MRAs should be less than supportive and are not impressed by her newly-improved N.

FC Whiteheads comments are hilarious to me. Here we have a married woman complaining that 2 of the 8 men that she shagged in the last six months rejected a relationship with her – just because she was married. How selfish of them. Luckily we have a fine upstanding churchian gent here to ensure that no one says anything uncharitable about the ‘lady’. After all it might distract her from ruining her husbands life. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Mr. Whitehead have you made any comments at your damsels site? I doubt it, because the real sin here is making a woman feel bad about her octuple adultery right?

Where I’m from, if you show out in public, that’s where it going to go down.

Regardless of whatever faith you practice, she painted her barn bright red, and put it out in the front lawn. What the hell makes you think people aren’t going to both LOOK and TALK about it?

This passage from Proverbs 9 reads:(since you’re hating on the OT, sir…)

13 A foolish woman is clamorous; She is simple, and knows nothing.

Clamorous complaining BEFORE and AFTER she was outed. Rich!

14 For she sits at the door of her house, on a seat by the highest places of the city,

On “The Frisky”…her DOOR, Bragging about her sinful dalliances.

15 To call to those who pass by, who go straight on their way:

How many people subscribe to her writings? How many pingbacks to her tripe? Nearly a thousand.

16 “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here”; And as for him who lacks understanding, she says to him, 17 “Stolen water is sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.”

“I belong to someone else, but you know what…don’t sweat it, I’m good to go IN STEREO!”

18 But he does not know that the dead are there, That her guests are in the depths of hell.

Well it appears that at least TWO of them knew they were laying up with death.

Here’s another one, FC!:

Psalm 19:7 (since you’re hating on the OT with your out of pocket sentiments) reads:
“The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.”

Whether there are “some” men here who are not necessarily presenting the Law of the Lord as you’d like, it doesn’t mean it isn’t PERFECT. And just because the others aren’t “TESTIFYING” (testiLYING) the way you’d like, doesn’t mean they are not on point, or that there is no wisdom in the overall sentiment.

The host of this Blog (Dalrock) is the dopest most on-point Christian man on the ‘net, probably immensely moreso than you, your Pastor, or anyone you know. School is in session when you come up in here, so it would have probably been WISE if you’d gleaned from some of the other stuff he’s written, along with Cane, Donal, Rollo, and a few other people in the Blogroll before you put on your cape and leotards and tried to white knight this woman.

We have daughters and step-daughters and neices and neighor-kids for whom we are standing in the gap so they won’t take the route of the unclean woman.

FC makes a major exegetical error–he fails to consider the cultural context. Jesus was acting within the Judean culture, which was patriarchal with all of its morals. We don’t live in a patriarchal culture. Hence, Jesus’ example doesn’t apply to Mrs. Brink. Realization of wrongdoing and guilt is essential for forgiveness. Mrs. Brink has not shown any such realization. Forgiveness must be requested, as we see throughout scripture, before it can be applied.

The difference between the adulteress brought before Christ, and Ms. Brink, is this:

The adulteress begged forgiveness. She knew she had done wrong; and came before Christ asking for grace, mercy and forgiveness.

Ms. Brink defiantly and rebelliously posts her photos and commentary. She flaunts her offensive behavior in everyone’s faces and demands that they accept her. She scoffs and derides other’s offense and rejection. Ms. Brink DEMANDS that Christ and everyone else embrace and celebrate her defiance and rebellion.

For real and for serious, the fuck business is it of any of yours when or whom someone *you don’t know* dates? For that matter, the fuck business is it of yours when or whom *anyone dates*? Seriously. Y’all need to find some other shit to occupy your time.

@Dalrock: This call for privacy is bizarre. She wrote under her own name about the men she had sex with while still married in the tabloid that she works for. The Frisky’s tagline is: The Frisky | Celebrity Gossip, Relationship Advice, Beauty and Fashion Tips

Dalrock makes a valid point but I think it’s important to note that Y’all is absolutely full of shit at her very core with her “what business is it of yours” tripe.

Had RVB’s article been good enough to have been widely shared around the net at other grrrl power sites where commenters affirmed her lifestyle, would Y’all be lecturing them about privacy and finding “some other shit to occupy [their] time.” Of course not.

Feminists expect praise from those who agree with them and SILENCE from those who do not. Anything more than silence makes them feel ‘unsafe.’

This more than anything, imo, reveals the fragility and emptiness and indeed falseness of the feminist worldview. It simply doesn’t have the wherewithal to stand up to even the mildest criticism.

You shall know them by their fruits. Believe me, the ‘real’ proponents of feminism — as distinguished from the useful idiots — definitely understand the fruits of this doctrine. They certainly don’t want anyone else to understand them though because once they do, they will naturally reject it as an act of self-preservation.

@greyghost
“I hope you are seeing this. Deti is posting up what Christian man game looks like. He is straight up speaking the truth with out fear of some cunt liking him. Where would this RVB at with a man like that in her life at any time. Knowing the truth doesn’t make you a player.”

Strange how you want me to read what Deti wrote yet you are unable to refute what I wrote.

It isn’t about fearing or not fearing what women or others think or what you think they should think. It is about living as God intended. As a captain who He put in control of His vessel HMS MARRIAGE and not as a temperamental teenage boy who can only complain about how unfair life is and how he is going to stick it to those who makes him feel bad. So whether you give a flying monkey about what women think or don’t think is irrelevant to the point I was making. The point I highlighted was that a “red pill Christian man” is a man who can not *govern his relationships* as God intended. So he uses game to make up for his lack of faith and remains stuck in the system he is trying to get out of. This is because he is still stuck in the mindset of an untrained Christian man and has become nothing more than a mirror reflection of the thing he despises. He whines and complains like an entitled women and manipulates them to get what he wants…which is no different than the women/feminists he reviles. And will continue to have problems because he does not realizes that the difference is the same…both use a no win, short sighted, short tem con game for their own selfish wants. Because what if your woman who you game meets a guy who has better game than you and he has his way with her? Will you be at fault (for not having enough game) the woman (for falling for game) or the other guy (for using game to out game you)? I am however sure that a red pill Christian man will not even consider that common denominator in this scenario… is game.

The def of govern
gov•ern (ˈgʌv ərn)

v.t.
1. to rule by right of authority, as a sovereign does: to govern a nation.
2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision.
3. to hold in check; control: to govern one’s temper.
4. to serve as or constitute a law for: the principles governing a case.
5. (of a word or class of words) to require the use of a particular form of (another word or class).
6. to regulate the speed of (an engine) with a governor.
v.i.
7. to exercise the function of government.
8. to have predominating influence.

govern – From Greek kubernan, “to steer.”

No need for a Christian man to use a con game if you follow the instructions found in the Bible in how to steer your relationships with authority.

The context implies the adulterous women was repentant, but we are not told her direct attitude, except that she called Him lord when He asked her who remained to accuse her. His command indicates a repentance, but it does not indicate she came to Jesus herself unless I am missing another reference.

cicero- I did the best I could. Nothing about “game’ is not already written in the bible. In fact it was just something I had faith in because it made so much sense and was so soothing to hysterical souls. Then these guys start reading and posting straight from the bible “game’ God already had it covered it was just churchians hiding it from us trying to please women

Mrs Brink’s White Knight and all-purpose Mangina Adam Lee aka Daylight Atheist has finally risen from his slumbers on Twitter to do her bidding and describes Dalrock as a sewer pit of an MRA blog and encourages his followers to report Dalrock for abuse. What that abuse might consist in he does not say; he doubtless cannot do so for he gives not the slightest indication that he has even looked at this blog; neither does he say whether he has taken his own advice.

Always nice to see members of the Church of Militant Atheism revealing gullibility and lack of tolerance in equal measure as they pontificate about things of which they are entirely ignorant. 😦

While you’re absolutely right about avoiding a relationship with God being a terrible idea, I can’t agree with you that remaining permanently single is “a level of misery that even a lousy marriage can’t approach” — and neither does the book of Proverbs. “Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.” (Prov. 21:9 and 25:24 — same proverb is repeated twice). And “A quarrelsome wife is like the dripping of a leaky roof in a rainstorm; restraining her is like restraining the wind or grasping oil with the hand.” (Prov. 27:15-16).

And a man I know, who was married very young as a non-Christian, then had his wife divorce him after he became a believer, told me once that there was something far worse than being single, and that was being trapped in a bad marriage. I prefer to listen to his experience, backed up by the Bible, than theory. Yes, most (not all — Matthew 19:12) men are designed for a relationship with a wife (Genesis 2:18). But it would be a HUGE mistake to enter into a lousy marriage just to be married, and it does NO favors to young men to tell them to do so. Instead, we should be telling them to avoid women who would make lousy wives as if their life depended on it.

You are arguing with a strawman, not with what I wrote. I was responding to a couple of commenters that were saying, essentially, that marriage is a bad idea because of the risks; better to not even try. My response was, “To choose to avoid a marriage relationship because of X is to choose a level of misery that even a lousy marriage can’t approach.” You interpreted that to mean that I was promoting something like this: “Heck, if you can’t find a good woman, marry a bad one, it’s better than nothing!” Which means you would rather assume I’m a complete idiot than go back and consider that your interpretation might be fallacious.

If you had considered the context, you might have understood that I was making a point about the mindset (“choose”) of the commenters I was responding to. A person who chooses to avoid the institution of marriage, in general, because of the risks or whatever, is a person who doesn’t respect their creator or His design. And a person who doesn’t respect their creator is going to be miserable in this life and doomed in the next.

The fact is, marriage is what every human was designed for (“male and female he created them” — not male, female, and neuter). Yes, God may grant a special dispensation to a select few, to allow them to serve him single-mindedly, but that is his choice, not ours.

Splashman, if you’re going to disagree with Robin then use some Bible references. You can’t say “It’s God’s will” without backing it up with Holy Writ. There is no divine mandate to get married outside of Mosaic law and we have Paul in 1 Cor. 7 recommending against marriage in general.

Dalrock is probably dealing with WordPress as we speak. Dalrock, if I were you, I would back up the blog now while you still have the chance. Forewarned is forearmed

I haven’t heard anything from WordPress. The irony is it is Ms. Brink and the cowardly white knight Adam Lee who are abusing Twitter to spread lies about me and try to get wordpress to take down my blog.

I do have the site backed up.

@Boxer

If this blog goes down, I pledge to pay the initial hosting fees if the writer(s) want to take it to a private server. I have no contact info for “Dalrock” which is why I’m throwing this out publicly.

Thanks Boxer. I don’t think that will be needed, but if wordpress decides to buckle to an atheist leading a witch hunt against a Christian blog I’ll keep that in mind.

> You interpreted that to mean that I was promoting something like this: “Heck, if you can’t find a good woman, marry a bad one, it’s better than nothing!”

That is how I read what you wrote. I may have missed something, but you may want to consider that your post was not as clear as you think.

I happen to believe that avoiding marriage is not good for society, but I also see why many men would choose that path today and I doubt I would seek anyone out were I to find myself single, though I not the target audience for most of what is noted here.

The fact is, marriage is what every human was designed for (“male and female he created them” — not male, female, and neuter). Yes, God may grant a special dispensation to a select few, to allow them to serve him single-mindedly, but that is his choice, not ours.

Mustard says:

Not really. There are many people who are not suitable for marriage, apart from “serving God single-mindedly.” People with physical difficulties, mental difficulties, personality difficulties. These are natural situations, and those folks don’t need a special “dispensation” either from God or us to remain single. The same applies to loners, people who do not want relations with the opposite sex for whatever reason, religious vocations, etc. Respect their natural or personal inclinations, and don’t put them in a doctrinal box, even if you think you can do so. Thanks.

Dalrock says:
July 16, 2014 at 6:17 pm
“Thanks Boxer. I don’t think that will be needed, but if wordpress decides to buckle to an atheist leading a witch hunt against a Christian blog I’ll keep that in mind.”

I finally got around to looking at the link last night (it’s filtered at the office). Although I long ago stopped being surprised at the utter disdain that feminists have toward the concepts of intellectual integrity and consistency, I can’t help but be struck by her sense of entitlement to continued sex with the two men who declined and by her belief that they needed a valid reason to stop. If a man had written something to that effect, the “RAPE CULTURE” warriors would have gone nuts.

You MRA’s need to leave this woman alone. She has not done any harm to anyone here. You don’t get to be the judge of what she chooses to do with her life. The things that are being said about her here are just mean-spirited and wrong! Quite the opposite of being loving and treating another person with dignity. I wish writing like this would just go away.

I won’t address the substance of KendraSK08’s comment (because there’s almost nothing there; her entire paragraph boils down to “You’re a bunch of meanies!”), but I want to point out that in her world view, being called a “Men’s Rights Activist” is an insult.

Then after all those years trying to win an unbeliever husband over to Christ, she frivorced him after his conversion a couple of years later.

Some Churchian girls who find church-going guys boring set out to convert an unbelieving bad-boy. It’s perfect: she gets to date a bad boy — she has to, for the sake of his soul! — and gets to look good at church when she’s able to drag him along. But if she’s ever successful in converting him for real, suddenly he loses some of the “edge” that attracted her and becomes just another church-going schlub she doesn’t find all that attractive anymore for some reason.

1. This is not an MRA blog and Dalrock is NOT an MRA activist. Stop hatin' on this man.

2. While you wish that "writing like this" would just go away, it won't becaaaaaause, this is a blog mainly for those who are disciples of Christ, and who lean to the authority of the Holy Scriptures for guidance. And if you're not one of those people, you're not going to like what the people here say. And the Bible says a lot of stuff, indeed, like this:

Ezekiel 23:36The LORD said to me: "Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah? Then confront them with their detestable practices

We, the people here, know people like Oholah and Oholibah. They are called feminist, adulterous, solipsistic, and just plain rank and foul assed women, in all places in the known universe, who have turned themselves over to things that are foreign to the One who created them. One of those people include Rebecca Vipond Brink. Holy Scripture allows for us, operating in the spirit of the prophets of old, to confront people like that. If anyone doesn't like it…tough. If you spit in the face of Christ by mocking his sacrifice for your sins, publicly on the Frisky, and on Twitter, then you're gonna get talked about.

3. Devout men of God (and others) also wish that sinful, adulterous women who are contributing to the erosion of family, community, municipality, state, and country – would not just go away, but REPENT of their sinful ways, accept Christ as their savior, and stand with us as we endeavor to fulfill the Great Commission.

And where exactly did I peddle blue pill churchian tripe? Like a scared little liberal bitch you just make nebulous statements because someone questions your flawed dogma and now you see it as a personal attack on who you are. Be specific about the issues you have with what I wrote and logically and Biblically refute them on a point for point basis. If you can do that then you are on your way to start acting like a man. Stop acting like a temper tantrum teenage girl.

“So following the wisdom of the Song of Solomon = “con game” according to you.’

And how many wife’s and mistresses did he have? And is that what God wanted? Because most of those same wife’s and mistresses brought pagan religions to Israel ( that he allowed) and the consequences of that were felt for hundreds of years with blood. The thing is like all good red pill plebs you just take what is written in the Bible out of context to suit your views not that of God.

@greyghost

“cicero- I did the best I could. Nothing about “game’ is not already written in the bible. In fact it was just something I had faith in because it made so much sense and was so soothing to hysterical souls. Then these guys start reading and posting straight from the bible “game’ God already had it covered it was just churchians hiding it from us trying to please women”

I agree with you that the churchians were hiding game from you and that is why it is so successful for men who came to realize that they have been on the receiving end of the stinky stick and are now turning the tables. However the difference is the same. Like you know it is all about usurping control from men and the authority of God and responsibilities He gave to the husband. That however does not mean that game is from God or found in the Bible as being a positive and effective approach to solving relationship problems. It looks very similar but the fundamentals are different. The (simplistic) example I used for you was that of a captain of a ship. Captains [unlike those feminist pirate captains] don’t beg, they don’t con their crew and they don’t pedestal. They govern their ship as instructed and required according to the law of the sea. If a crew member gets out of line that is dealt with appropriately, if a crew member does not do their duties then that is dealt with appropriately. The goal is to place a standard and have those standards met for more than just short term goals and satisfactions [aka looting booty].

The problem with red pill Christians is that they now think they know how to govern but are not trained yet do steer the ship as God wants and because game [pirate tactics] works in the short term they believe that is how a relationship is properly governed. So they use the same pirate tactics as feminists like group consensus, shaming and like old theasdgamer making nebulous attack statements that make no logical sense with the sole goal of getting an emotional response from the recipient to argue in circles…and so forth

Each man applies the aspects of “game” to suit his own individual situation…thus there are no Pirates nor Ship to steer, but his own.

As St Paul admonishes married men to “dwell with their wives according to knowledge”, in a broader sense Red Pill Christian men “deal” with “women” according to knowledge, that up till now, has been obscured.

I’m one who encourages others to hate neither the player or game, because it’s not something of which ANY man, including YOU, can opt out of…unless you choose to avoid contact with woman altogether, personally or professionally.

I will be opening my legs for you as and when I am ready.. okay? Stop bothering me. As you no doubt have heard, it’s “one at a time” and you’re number – oh I forget from time to time – but it’s somewhere between 50 and 100. So.. just hush and wait your turn and “man up”!

Love

Rebecca Vipond on the Brink

P.S. You should be willing to “man up” and take on those evil MRAs and Christian haters without reward for sex. However, through in a meal and a “relationship” and I’ll reconsider! You pay of course!

And which aspects would those be? And what situations are you referring to? Are you saying that game is not as pure and infallible as some claim? Gasp… the horror. Yet when I confront the whole that is wrong. It is either black or white. You either do what God wants or you don’t. Because those who live in the grey lean towards the darker side of the colour spectrum. They are neither hot, nor cold but luke warm.

“…thus there are no Pirates nor Ship to steer, but his own.”

His own what? Is own ship or his own life? So you are of the view that a Christian man’s life or marriage does not belong to God but to the man. Riiight….and you don’t see what you just said do you.

“As St Paul admonishes married men to “dwell with their wives according to knowledge”, in a broader sense Red Pill Christian men “deal” with “women” according to knowledge, that up till now, has been obscured.”

You are confusing knowledge with facts. Anyone can spew out facts that are accurate, however it is the facts that are left out that is more often than not the important ones. And it is these inconvenient facts that I am showing.

“I’m one who encourages others to hate neither the player or game, because it’s not something of which ANY man, including YOU, can opt out of…unless you choose to avoid contact with woman altogether, personally or professionally.”

And did I encourage hate? What I have been advocating the whole time (which seems to have gone over your head or which you chose to ignore) is love. I love my brothers and that is why I am trying to show them that they have been duped again into the system that uses them. What I have been doing is telling and showing Christian men that there is a more effective way than game when it comes in interacting with women. What I am doing is showing that the truth of game is not compatible with the Truth in Christ. So your “opt out” alternative is nothing more than a red herring to the choice being either churchian or game.

Because if you truly knew the actual game that is being played then you wouldn’t have callously dismiss the naval example I gave.

That is not precisely true. She and the people that she influences are gradually destroying society. The social and economic costs accumulate over time and are not easily reversable. That is one reason that many here think as they do.

@Cicero…the knowledge that Paul refers to also encompasses "understanding"…which Solomon admonishes us to get, at all costs…right?

It's 6 of one, half a dozen of the other, but men can't deal with the fallen nature of women unless we understand it, can we not?

If it makes you feel better, we won't call "game"…game.

We'll call it:

The Ephemeral Method of Shepherding and Managing Wives In Order To Sustain the Reverent Sacrament of Marriage, Bearing Witness to the Mysteries Therein, in Accordance with the Oracles of God, the Holy Scriptures.

@Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston
“…the knowledge that Paul refers to also encompasses “understanding”…which Solomon admonishes us to get, at all costs…right?”

And that is the point. You don’t know that you don’t know because your understanding is based only on some of the facts not all. So when you say “at all cost” you are being disingenuous because your understanding on the subject is limited to begin with. Now that new information is highlighted you dismiss them without careful consideration and thought because it is in conflict with what you want.

“It’s 6 of one, half a dozen of the other, but men can’t deal with the fallen nature of women unless we understand it, can we not?”

What… so the glass is either half full making you an optimist half empty making you a pessimist. However a realist says the glass is completely full. Half air and half fluid. And what I am talking about in no way shape or form sidelined the understanding of women. And you thinking this after reading what I wrote shows that you started the discussion with a predisposed notion of what was being said. I was highlighting the Biblical way to counter that behavior not ignore it.

“If it makes you feel better, we won’t call “game”…game.”

Unlike you and women I do not need my feelings coddled.

“We’ll call it:
The Ephemeral Method of Shepherding and Managing Wives In Order To Sustain the Reverent Sacrament of Marriage, Bearing Witness to the Mysteries Therein, in Accordance with the Oracles of God, the Holy Scriptures.”

Wow that is an impressive definition. However just like a child getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar you are flip flopping on what you said to try and justify your behavior. Reminds me of women who claim that God told them to divorce their husbands and that is what He wants.

You said “Each man applies the aspects of “game” to suit *his* own individual situation…thus there are no Pirates nor Ship to steer, but *his* own.”
I don’t see any mention of God or Holy Scriptures in your first post. I do however only see mention of men doing it their way when it suits them in the situation they find themselves in. So just like a liberal feminist you use definitions to suit your inconsistent views. Like I said the difference is the same.

@cicero, re: captaincy. Perhaps you aren’t familiar with the Mutiny on the Bounty, but *you* were the one who suggested the problem of rebellious women was necessarily that they weren’t being captained properly.

BTW the heresy of your intimation is condemned throughout the Bible, a notable example being backsliding Israel’s rebellion they did not consider God to be a good enough captain.

I don’t normally comment over here and haven’t read the comments of this post. But Donal wrote a post based on a couple of the comments here. I left a comment over there in response to one of them, and wanted to leave part of it here as well. In response to a comment by Stringtheory about a 28 year old man taking antidepressants to supress his sex drive:

I very much feel for this man that Stringtheory describes. I think he’s doing an honorable thing by seeking to keep himself from sexual sin, given his difficult and unfair circumstances. Though he probably doesn’t realize the different kind of harm he’s doing to himself by misusing hormonal meds. As a pharmacy tech I’ve seen the effects of misusing / abusing drugs (even non-narcotic /non-addictive drugs) where people take things wrong or take things they don’t really need, which only causes more problems. This man is playing with fire by taking an antidepressant when he isn’t seriously clinically depressed. The decision to take these should not be entered into lightly, and only when there is a true chemical imbalance preventing you from functioning normally, and they must be weaned onto and off of (not doing this just right will cause your system to go haywire). The side effects go way beyond decreased sexual desire. So I’m of the opinion that chemical castration isn’t the right way to go. Just wanted to get this out here in case anyone reading was/is considering doing the same as this man but wasn’t aware of the problems with doing so.

(For reference, I completely understand why he would feel the need to do this. I’m about his age, choosing to live a life of chastity until marriage, and very frustrated about all of it not working out for the same reason it’s not working out for him. So I know the torture of having to supress your own urges yourself, and I still think taking antidepressants to do this when you aren’t seriously clinically depressed to the point of not being a functional person is a horrible idea.)

@jf12
I sometimes go down philosophical tangents. Please reference previous posts as to N counts etc. the intentionality and circumstances. Also, I would not consider myself a good marriage candidate (should I be on the market) due to above mentioned experiences for the reasons Cail stated. A girl with an actual N=2 is probably a lot better shot than me.

@jf12
“captaincy. Perhaps you aren’t familiar with the Mutiny on the Bounty, but *you* were the one who suggested the problem of rebellious women was necessarily that they weren’t being captained properly.”

Oh I am more than familiar with the mutiny. However you wrote “Captain Bligh was an excellent captain.” So like a woman you wanted me to read your mind in what you were trying to say and not clearly articulate the issue you wanted to highlight.

So what you are trying to say is that because a historic mutiny by men, that occurred on a vessel hundreds of years ago and being a shining example of what the consequences are for those who do mutiny and the importance of proper governance now shows that women can not be governed properly?

That is called mental gymnastics.

“BTW the heresy of your intimation is condemned throughout the Bible, a notable example being backsliding Israel’s rebellion they did not consider God to be a good enough captain.’

Heresy? *Facepalm* God isn’t the captain you fool He is the owner who put others in charge to captain His property as He instructs them to. So you can take your hurt feelings of my so called “heresy of intimidation” to your red pill support group for a good whining. Next time read what is actually written.

@Patrick Pedat Ebediyah Golston
“Liberal feminist? Boy,…you’re tripping. It’s not that deep, and I’m not going to fill up this man’s blog with the volumes of scripture I could quote.”

You are right, it isn’t deep and that makes it even more ironic. You claim one thing and the shift to another when it suits you. It is as clear as daylight.

“Who does that on someone else’s turf?”

Turf? Shows your maturity boy. What … has this become some or other gang land where those who wear a red pill insignia bandana are not to be crossed? They say the same thing in the feminist pink bandana quarters. No wonder relationships can’t get out of the gutter.

“Sheesh.
And I already know my definition was impressive…it was also correct. Hmmm…”

The thing that is amazing to me about women’s interest in getting divorced and “finding themselves” etc. is the degree to which they are acting against their own best interests. Dalrock points this out often–female divorcees are much less likely to get remarried than men, and the older they get, the harder it is for them to find mates.

I can almost understand a hypergamous 30 year old woman wanting to end her first marriage and “trade up” to a better mate (for better genes and/or better provisions). It may be bad, but looked at through the narrow lens of hypergamy such a move can actually be in her best interest.

But it seems that women older than, say, 38 or so are likely to regret getting divorced. They are abandoning an existing partnership for a set of false expectations. I think they imagine a short but thrilling adventurous Round 2 on the Cock Carousel followed by another marriage to a much better man than their first husband. But I think what often happens is that Round 2 on the Cock Carousel is a lot less fun than Round 1, because the aging female divorcee is simply less in demand. There are men who will sleep with her, sure, but they are less likely to stick around or offer romantic commitment. And the divorcee’s hope of attracting the commitment of a higher-quality man in her 40s than she managed to attract in her 20s is really nonsensical. Both common sense and the re-marriage statistics show that it just doesn’t happen most of the time.

So why would they do it? As Dalrock points out, the Eat Pray Love fantasy is part of it, the feminist “you go girl” culture is part of it. Short-term thinking, entitlement, lack of commitment, desire for ego-gratification, etc. is part of it. More economic independence for women is part of it. And an expectation that the State will provide for them is part of it. (Although I read a great quote recently: “Anyone who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government
take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford)

But I think there are a lot of 40, 50, and 60 something women out there who are much sadder, lonelier, and poorer than they had to be, because, in spite of approaching middle age, they indulged in adolescent decision-making.

In the case of Ms. Brink, you can already see a fairly sad spectacle unfolding. She may feel a temporary rush of being “liberated” from an unsatisfying relationship. But there’s something sad about seeing a woman approaching middle age who is posting semi-nude pictures of herself for the public to see. At her age, she should be sharing photos of her children, not her tattoos. There’s a palpable sense of aloneness in these photos–you can tell they are shot in the type of urban apartment where a feminist lives alone. Will some men visit the apartment for sex in the next few years? Sure. Will a love-struck man make a commitment to move in permanently? Not likely.

I am an atheist. I do not believe in God. However, this is one of my favourate blog for years. Some atheist are woman-worshiping feminists. They make me sick to my stomach. If you google the term “why is feminism poisoning atheism” you will see many examples of them.

Look at the trend of white approval (which is the one that matters). It went from just 4% in 1959 to 45% in 1995 to 84% in 2011. That is extremely fast. Whites living in 1959 would never, ever have expected that by 2011, there is near total approval among whites for black-white marriage.

LOL, dude, there are porn stars who won’t fuck black guys. There is no fucking way 84% of the population really approves of black-white miscegenation.

What you’re seeing is the answers of people who do not want to appear racist, but would never have an interracial relationship themselves. Polls are also partisan and have a habit of polling very liberal areas when they want a very liberal response.

Not to praise myself, but it is interesting to note that Ms. Brink has taken a phrase from my comment on July 13th, 9:29pm and is using it a a rallying call for some misbegotten “art” project.

From her website:

“Hi, folks! I’ve got a project that I’m working on for which I need the kind and generous help of artists and illustrators. It’s a body-positivity project called Very Poor Character, Indeed centered on portraying the reality of a bodies against the things that are said about them, and I need artists to illustrate caricatures….”

No doubt most of the criticism from other posters was poignant and deserved, but I find it interesting she’s focused upon this one phrase, ‘very poor character, indeed’. Of all the comments on this thread for her to react to, I suspect it’s because the criticism went toward her appearance, politics, and artistic tastes that revealed her ugly character and not merely her actions in the midst of her divorce. Poor girl and broken one at that. I truly feel pity for her. She could still be so much more if she put aside her hatred and rage towards herself(hence the tattoos), others(her Leftist politics), and truth(her choice of art). FWIW, I’ll pray for her to get past the pain, rage, and hatred that dwells within her. No doubt it will be difficult and she’ll have to walk that path on her own, it’s still not too late for her to change and build a brighter future for herself.

It means: “we they talk about nigras like dogs when nigras ain’t around, just like we talk about women when women ain’t around.”

Being Red Pill means that while some share our unilateral disdain for wayward and un-sanctified women, doesn’t mean they still don’t have antipathy for the lesser elements of society in non-white ethnic groups…whether they are atheist, Christian, Jew or Rottweiler.

Hey there TFH…it’s always surreal, dealing any flavor of -ism that is, from my world view – anti-Christ.

Scripture encourages us to “prefer the brethren”, but I admit I don’t prefer ‘brethren’ who hold to certain -isms that grieve the Holy and Set-Apart Spirit of Yahweh..the god of Israel and all of mankind.

Although I must admit that visible panty lines on women, men who wear tasseled moccasins with cuffed pants on suits, and people who like to “keep it real” annoy the hell out of me…so I suppose I suffer from supercilliousness-ism. 🙂

We all swallow the Red Pill, but the fuck if we’re going to drink from the same cup to wash it down. That’s a tru-ism..

There’s something sad about seeing a woman approaching middle age who is posting semi-nude pictures of herself for the public to see.”

Agree. It’s undignified, desperate and sad even if the standard is third city boho culture.”

“There’s a palpable sense of aloneness in these photos–you can tell they are shot in the type of urban apartment where a feminist lives alone.”

Agree again. A manic desperation come through.

“Will some men visit the apartment for sex in the next few years? Sure. Will a love-struck man make a commitment to move in permanently? Not likely.”

Disagree. One of reasons this strategy crosses all economic/educational/religious/ social levels is because it works. She’ll find another husband if she wants one bad enough. Sure, it will likely be some eunuch like Lee incapable of ever really fulfilling her but it’s a warm body. Right now she’s apparently a lesbian (hahaha) …. So she’s already way ahead of everybody with respect to the desperate rationalizations.